35 ms·

It always blows my mind to see people suggest that making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult is not only acceptable, but preferred.

syshum 10y ago
It always blows my mind to see people suggest the police exist to provide protection. The government and the court system is very clear that the police are NOT a protection unit, any protection provided is merely a by product of their primary mission, Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement has nothing to do with protection, but rather order and control. Protection can be a side effect of order and control but it is not the primary goal, or reason for the existence of Police.
vkou 10y ago
Those people may have sworn an oath to protect us, but in practice, like any security apparatus, they care more about protecting the state from us.
miend 10y ago
The US Constitution must blow your mind, then, because that's largely what it does.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> It always blows my mind to see people suggest that making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult is not only acceptable, but preferred. The police aren't sworn to protect the public. They are sworn (like all public employees) to protect the Constitution, which is a very different thing, and even there accountability to that oath is pretty weak (and most of the things that people complain about making their life harder just provide some small measure of accountability for them doing what they are, in fact, sworn to do.)
- syshum 10y ago
  >> They are sworn (like all public employees) to protect the Constitution Sorry no. Federal Law Enforcement, Military, and Elected officials maybe. Probably some other Federal Employees But there is no requirement, nor do many local police dept, require any oath at all, and I can not think of any off the top of my head that have a oath to the Constitution in their ceremony.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Sorry, no: you need to look into the text and application of Art. VI, cl. 3 (the "Oaths Clause") of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the similar provisions in many U.S. state constitutions.
    - syshum 10y ago
      That does NOT apply to "all public employees" That apples to Elected Officials, Judicial Officers. Further my state has no such clause in its constitution
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > That does NOT apply to "all public employees" Yes, it does. (Well, arguably not to legislative branch officers who are not themselves legislators, though AFAIK both the federal government and all states actually do have such officers make a similar oath or affirmation to the one required by the Oaths Clause.) > That apples to Elected Officials, Judicial Officers. No, it applies to: (1) All federal and state legislators, (2) All executive officers, and (3) All judicial officers. "Executive officers" is not the same as "elected officials". The oaths clause use of "officers" has similar breadth of that in the Appointments Clause (Art. II, S. 2, cl. 2) except that the Oaths Clause expressly applies to both state and federal officers, and the Appointments Clause only to federal officers. > Further my state has no such clause in its constitution The main additional effect of state oaths clauses (whether Constitutional or statutory) is to require an oath to the state constitution in approximately the same class of state officers that are covered by the federal oaths clause. (They often also reiterate the federal requirement.)
wyager 10y ago
Ineffiency puts an upper bound on tyranny. Regardless of whatever you think the police are "sworn" to do, we have incontrovertible experimental evidence that they often do not have our best interests at heart. You know what also makes the jobs of police officers harder? Checks and balances. The right to a lawyer. Miranda rights. The fact that they have to get warrants. It is hopelessly naïve to assume that anything good can come of giving the police more authority.
pc86 10y ago
It always blows my mind to see people willfully misinterpret the meaning of a statement. In this context there is obviously a belief that the police are doing something they should. Whether it's illegal, or immoral, or legal but contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, or whatever the reasoning may be. They could just as easily have said "anything that makes it more difficult for the NSA to track my interests and whereabouts is bonus points" and I think a majority of people on here would probably agree with that statement. Just because it's a local cop sworn to protect Americans vs. an NSA analyst or FBI agent doesn't make them any more likely to actually do it.
- drusepth 10y ago
  >They could just as easily have said "anything that makes it more difficult for the NSA to track my interests and whereabouts is bonus points" and I think a majority of people on here would probably agree with that statement. Perhaps I have a different view of the NSA than you do, but I would have had the same response to that. Like the police, they exist to protect us, and if they're doing something irresponsible/immoral/illegal, they should be made accountable and corrected, rather than just made less efficient at it. Information is a powerful tool, and can be utilized to protect us in powerful ways. IMO the problem is not collecting the information, but how it's used. I'd much rather see a super-efficient all-knowing and well-intended protector than an inefficient bumbling mess.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>I'd much rather see a super-efficient all-knowing and well-intended protector That is a recipe for a Tyrannical Police state.
    - drusepth 10y ago
      Fortunately, it's the standard recipe for many utopian scenarios, also. Given the choice between the two, I like to think people are generally good and that a utopian world, if possible, is more likely.
TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
Come now, the police, as individuals, first priority is filling the belly of themselves and their immediate family. Their second and subsequent priorities are also as, or more so, self-serving.
squeaky-clean 10y ago
It should be made more difficult because of the harm that could come if it's used unjustly is much greater than any good it can cause by being used correctly. Just because someone has sworn to protect you doesn't mean they'll actually do it. And that doesn't prevent anyone else from using it against you either. In a perfect world, all the police follow the law, all the governments follow the law, and there are no criminals to steal this information. > at making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult What job is made easier by providing a list of all gun owners? > is not only acceptable, but preferred. It's pretty much the entire foundation of America. You don't trust the person. You trust the system, and hopefully design the system in a way that minimizes abuse. No, it's not perfect and never can be. But one concrete example is the fourth amendment. The ability for an officer to search a home for evidence without permission is just too ripe for abuse, even if it does allow criminals to get away with things.
polartx 10y ago
police need protection from themselves. I read a story some time back about police getting access to a dna database from a genealogical software company. (http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-enforcement-agencies-are-asking-ancestry-com-and-23andme-for-their-customers-dna/ http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-enforcement-agencies-are-...) With that database they began querying hundreds of thousands of dna samples with cold case samples. Ignoring the false-positive probabilities they started going after those hits. Long story short, they solved none of their cold cases, but investigated and harassed many innocent people; treating them like murderers. Joe Schmo down at the PD isn't a statistician, or even a 'data scientist'. Giving total data access to the unqualified and over impulsive will harm more our society more than it will protect it.
gumby 10y ago
Does the requirement for a warrant, or that you be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" blow your mind as well? These are fundamental limits on police powers.

syshum 10y ago

It always blows my mind to see people suggest the police exist to provide protection. The government and the court system is very clear that the police are NOT a protection unit, any protection provided is merely a by product of their primary mission, Law Enforcement. Law Enforcement has nothing to do with protection, but rather order and control. Protection can be a side effect of order and control but it is not the primary goal, or reason for the existence of Police.

vkou 10y ago

Those people may have sworn an oath to protect us, but in practice, like any security apparatus, they care more about protecting the state from us.

miend 10y ago

The US Constitution must blow your mind, then, because that's largely what it does.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> It always blows my mind to see people suggest that making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult is not only acceptable, but preferred. The police aren't sworn to protect the public. They are sworn (like all public employees) to protect the Constitution, which is a very different thing, and even there accountability to that oath is pretty weak (and most of the things that people complain about making their life harder just provide some small measure of accountability for them doing what they are, in fact, sworn to do.)

syshum 10y ago
>> They are sworn (like all public employees) to protect the Constitution Sorry no. Federal Law Enforcement, Military, and Elected officials maybe. Probably some other Federal Employees But there is no requirement, nor do many local police dept, require any oath at all, and I can not think of any off the top of my head that have a oath to the Constitution in their ceremony.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Sorry, no: you need to look into the text and application of Art. VI, cl. 3 (the "Oaths Clause") of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the similar provisions in many U.S. state constitutions.
  - syshum 10y ago
    That does NOT apply to "all public employees" That apples to Elected Officials, Judicial Officers. Further my state has no such clause in its constitution
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > That does NOT apply to "all public employees" Yes, it does. (Well, arguably not to legislative branch officers who are not themselves legislators, though AFAIK both the federal government and all states actually do have such officers make a similar oath or affirmation to the one required by the Oaths Clause.) > That apples to Elected Officials, Judicial Officers. No, it applies to: (1) All federal and state legislators, (2) All executive officers, and (3) All judicial officers. "Executive officers" is not the same as "elected officials". The oaths clause use of "officers" has similar breadth of that in the Appointments Clause (Art. II, S. 2, cl. 2) except that the Oaths Clause expressly applies to both state and federal officers, and the Appointments Clause only to federal officers. > Further my state has no such clause in its constitution The main additional effect of state oaths clauses (whether Constitutional or statutory) is to require an oath to the state constitution in approximately the same class of state officers that are covered by the federal oaths clause. (They often also reiterate the federal requirement.)

wyager 10y ago

Ineffiency puts an upper bound on tyranny. Regardless of whatever you think the police are "sworn" to do, we have incontrovertible experimental evidence that they often do not have our best interests at heart. You know what also makes the jobs of police officers harder? Checks and balances. The right to a lawyer. Miranda rights. The fact that they have to get warrants. It is hopelessly naïve to assume that anything good can come of giving the police more authority.

pc86 10y ago

It always blows my mind to see people willfully misinterpret the meaning of a statement. In this context there is obviously a belief that the police are doing something they should. Whether it's illegal, or immoral, or legal but contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, or whatever the reasoning may be. They could just as easily have said "anything that makes it more difficult for the NSA to track my interests and whereabouts is bonus points" and I think a majority of people on here would probably agree with that statement. Just because it's a local cop sworn to protect Americans vs. an NSA analyst or FBI agent doesn't make them any more likely to actually do it.

drusepth 10y ago
>They could just as easily have said "anything that makes it more difficult for the NSA to track my interests and whereabouts is bonus points" and I think a majority of people on here would probably agree with that statement. Perhaps I have a different view of the NSA than you do, but I would have had the same response to that. Like the police, they exist to protect us, and if they're doing something irresponsible/immoral/illegal, they should be made accountable and corrected, rather than just made less efficient at it. Information is a powerful tool, and can be utilized to protect us in powerful ways. IMO the problem is not collecting the information, but how it's used. I'd much rather see a super-efficient all-knowing and well-intended protector than an inefficient bumbling mess.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>I'd much rather see a super-efficient all-knowing and well-intended protector That is a recipe for a Tyrannical Police state.
  - drusepth 10y ago
    Fortunately, it's the standard recipe for many utopian scenarios, also. Given the choice between the two, I like to think people are generally good and that a utopian world, if possible, is more likely.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago

Come now, the police, as individuals, first priority is filling the belly of themselves and their immediate family. Their second and subsequent priorities are also as, or more so, self-serving.

squeaky-clean 10y ago

It should be made more difficult because of the harm that could come if it's used unjustly is much greater than any good it can cause by being used correctly. Just because someone has sworn to protect you doesn't mean they'll actually do it. And that doesn't prevent anyone else from using it against you either. In a perfect world, all the police follow the law, all the governments follow the law, and there are no criminals to steal this information. > at making the job of people sworn to protect them more difficult What job is made easier by providing a list of all gun owners? > is not only acceptable, but preferred. It's pretty much the entire foundation of America. You don't trust the person. You trust the system, and hopefully design the system in a way that minimizes abuse. No, it's not perfect and never can be. But one concrete example is the fourth amendment. The ability for an officer to search a home for evidence without permission is just too ripe for abuse, even if it does allow criminals to get away with things.

polartx 10y ago

police need protection from themselves. I read a story some time back about police getting access to a dna database from a genealogical software company. (http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-enforcement-agencies-are-asking-ancestry-com-and-23andme-for-their-customers-dna/ http://fusion.net/story/215204/law-enforcement-agencies-are-...) With that database they began querying hundreds of thousands of dna samples with cold case samples. Ignoring the false-positive probabilities they started going after those hits. Long story short, they solved none of their cold cases, but investigated and harassed many innocent people; treating them like murderers. Joe Schmo down at the PD isn't a statistician, or even a 'data scientist'. Giving total data access to the unqualified and over impulsive will harm more our society more than it will protect it.

gumby 10y ago

Does the requirement for a warrant, or that you be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" blow your mind as well? These are fundamental limits on police powers.