5 ms·

Most police aspirants have to be sprayed with mace before they are allowed to use it on other people. We should require aspiring border patrol agents to underg

Most police aspirants have to be sprayed with mace before they are allowed to use it on other people. We should require aspiring border patrol agents to undergo complete invasive searches as a part of their training before they are allowed to demand them for others.

chris_wot 11y ago
We should have all their assets seized and they should spend a few years in jail also... edit: for the slow among us, obviously I don't believe this.
- coldtea 11y ago
  They should spend some time in jail, yes -- like a month or so. Judges too. While it might clash with the "but they're proper human beings while those in jail are lesser humans" mentality some have [1], they should absolutely have a sense of what their punishments mean to people, and what the conditions where they sent them are. [1] To which I have to say, I hope you get thrown in jail sometime, something lots of otherwise upstanding citizens get to experience at some point or another, and not always because they were guilty (or unethical/unjustified which is a different thing), and then we'll see if you'll change your tune about prisoners being some kind of subhumans deserving everything they get. Especially in the US, a jail-happy country with 5% of the world's population but 25% of its prisoners.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    My spouse is a fan of trashy reality shows, to my eternal dismay. Naturally, these shows advertise other similar shows to their viewers. I have seen advertisements for a program where the apparent premise is to put a non-criminal into a "PMITA" prison for a month, and record their reactions. Even if they are only inside to get a taste, they will at least have "I get to go home after this" to hold on to while they are in.
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      Far more important than that, they have "The producers will pull me out if I'm in any serious danger." to rely on.
mordocai 11y ago
I don't know about mace, but I have seen people claim that police who are tased before being able to use a taser are only electrocuted for a couple seconds where as in the field police usually electrocute people for much longer. I imagine the same kind of thing would be done if they had to go through invasive searches. The searches wouldn't match reality.
- thesis 11y ago
  Much longer? What does that mean? 4 seconds, minutes, hours? Whenever I have seen people tazed by police, it seems over rather fast.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Training might be a single (machine timed) 5 second dose. You're held be two people, and drop onto a crash mat. Real life might be repeated tasings with no one to support you as you fall onto tarmac.
- jMyles 11y ago
  electrocuted?! TASERs kill a lot of people (more than one a week), but it's usually ostensibly not intentional.
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    I believe the technically correct term is "electrotetanized" when the current does not actually result in death.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      This is something of a personal mission for you, isn't it? https://www.google.com/search?q=electrotetanized https://www.google.com/search?q=electrotetanized
      - logfromblammo 11y ago
bweitzman 11y ago
I think that's unnecessary. Obviously police officers shouldn't have to be shot before they are allowed to shoot people, so where is the cutoff?
- DannoHung 11y ago
  They should be shot at before they're allowed to shoot anyone, for sure.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Shoot them with beanbags instead. You'll live with a hell of a bruise and a memory you won't soon forget. Obviously you won't do anything that leaves actual lasting harm. Let's not get silly here.
- Broken_Hippo 11y ago
  Shooting is obviously deadly force, which is usually unreasonable in most situations. There are other ways to deal with this - not allowing cops to carry guns on their person (kept in cars, with alarms and paperwork each time they are removed, plus automatic backup, etc) seems to help people think twice before entering a situation. In addition, you can have them talk to recovering gunshot victims, show graphic gun damage before they are out in the field, and other such things. Invasive searches, however, I fully agree with. Even at a lesser scale, standing there naked in front of your fellow workers getting your anus probed correctly is surely going to be memorable. I would fully support them using each other for training and proper procedure.
  - bweitzman 11y ago
    I don't see why we should be relying on the emotional responses of people rather than on cold hard policy. I mean, to be fair, we already have the policy, but I think we should address why it's failing to be implemented. I'd guess that it's only a small part that due to an underestimate of the amount of harm various police tactics cause targets. This particular post clearly points out that that this is common and that there is a pattern, which IMO points to management rather than officers being the root cause. An officer should be thinking, "Wow I'm going to lose my job or face criminal charges if I do this search", not "Hmm I don't think this person is going to enjoy this search very much". And it's pretty obvious to me from the terrible epidemic of police brutality that this attitude is not common, nor encouraged.

chris_wot 11y ago

We should have all their assets seized and they should spend a few years in jail also... edit: for the slow among us, obviously I don't believe this.

coldtea 11y ago
They should spend some time in jail, yes -- like a month or so. Judges too. While it might clash with the "but they're proper human beings while those in jail are lesser humans" mentality some have [1], they should absolutely have a sense of what their punishments mean to people, and what the conditions where they sent them are. [1] To which I have to say, I hope you get thrown in jail sometime, something lots of otherwise upstanding citizens get to experience at some point or another, and not always because they were guilty (or unethical/unjustified which is a different thing), and then we'll see if you'll change your tune about prisoners being some kind of subhumans deserving everything they get. Especially in the US, a jail-happy country with 5% of the world's population but 25% of its prisoners.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  My spouse is a fan of trashy reality shows, to my eternal dismay. Naturally, these shows advertise other similar shows to their viewers. I have seen advertisements for a program where the apparent premise is to put a non-criminal into a "PMITA" prison for a month, and record their reactions. Even if they are only inside to get a taste, they will at least have "I get to go home after this" to hold on to while they are in.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    Far more important than that, they have "The producers will pull me out if I'm in any serious danger." to rely on.

mordocai 11y ago

I don't know about mace, but I have seen people claim that police who are tased before being able to use a taser are only electrocuted for a couple seconds where as in the field police usually electrocute people for much longer. I imagine the same kind of thing would be done if they had to go through invasive searches. The searches wouldn't match reality.

thesis 11y ago
Much longer? What does that mean? 4 seconds, minutes, hours? Whenever I have seen people tazed by police, it seems over rather fast.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Training might be a single (machine timed) 5 second dose. You're held be two people, and drop onto a crash mat. Real life might be repeated tasings with no one to support you as you fall onto tarmac.
jMyles 11y ago
electrocuted?! TASERs kill a lot of people (more than one a week), but it's usually ostensibly not intentional.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  I believe the technically correct term is "electrotetanized" when the current does not actually result in death.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    This is something of a personal mission for you, isn't it? https://www.google.com/search?q=electrotetanized https://www.google.com/search?q=electrotetanized
    - logfromblammo 11y ago

bweitzman 11y ago

I think that's unnecessary. Obviously police officers shouldn't have to be shot before they are allowed to shoot people, so where is the cutoff?

DannoHung 11y ago
They should be shot at before they're allowed to shoot anyone, for sure.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Shoot them with beanbags instead. You'll live with a hell of a bruise and a memory you won't soon forget. Obviously you won't do anything that leaves actual lasting harm. Let's not get silly here.
Broken_Hippo 11y ago
Shooting is obviously deadly force, which is usually unreasonable in most situations. There are other ways to deal with this - not allowing cops to carry guns on their person (kept in cars, with alarms and paperwork each time they are removed, plus automatic backup, etc) seems to help people think twice before entering a situation. In addition, you can have them talk to recovering gunshot victims, show graphic gun damage before they are out in the field, and other such things. Invasive searches, however, I fully agree with. Even at a lesser scale, standing there naked in front of your fellow workers getting your anus probed correctly is surely going to be memorable. I would fully support them using each other for training and proper procedure.
- bweitzman 11y ago
  I don't see why we should be relying on the emotional responses of people rather than on cold hard policy. I mean, to be fair, we already have the policy, but I think we should address why it's failing to be implemented. I'd guess that it's only a small part that due to an underestimate of the amount of harm various police tactics cause targets. This particular post clearly points out that that this is common and that there is a pattern, which IMO points to management rather than officers being the root cause. An officer should be thinking, "Wow I'm going to lose my job or face criminal charges if I do this search", not "Hmm I don't think this person is going to enjoy this search very much". And it's pretty obvious to me from the terrible epidemic of police brutality that this attitude is not common, nor encouraged.