6 ms·
I agree with the general sentiment, but cases like Trayvon Martin tells that a non-police US citizen can apparently chase a person down for not much more than "
by yongjik 10y ago
I agree with the general sentiment, but cases like Trayvon Martin tells that a non-police US citizen can apparently chase a person down for not much more than "he doesn't look like he belong in this street", start an altercation, shoot and kill, and claim self-defense.
If drawing a gun because you think you're threatened is a US citizen's right, then it will remain a US police officer's right. You can have both, or you can have none.
- whamlastxmas 10y agoBody cameras solve this problem.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago> If drawing a gun because you think you're threatened is a US citizen's right, then it will remain a US police officer's right. You can have both, or you can have none. I disagree - the police should absolutely be held to a higher standard, because they're empowered by the state.
- coldtea 10y ago>because they're empowered by the state. The state is just the embodiment (imperfect as most things are, but still) of the people's will (and attitudes). So what the parent said, still holds. It's that attitude being prevalent that permits it, both in individuals and the state.
- pavel_lishin 10y agoRight. So when a police officer is on duty, he's more than just an American citizen - he's the embodiment of the people's desire to enforce law and order, and as such, he or she should be held to a higher burden than "I was scared someone was going to hurt me".
- coldtea 10y agoThe problem is, the people desire for law and order to be enforced brutally and with "zero tolerance". And by "the people" I mean, "a heck of a lot of people"...