3 ms·

Yes they are trained (whether explicitly or informally between each other) to do this. It will continue so long as it works.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gravypod 10y ago
I'd like to ask you for a hypothetical. Say you are a police officer and one of your coworkers shouts "GUN" and you don't directly see one. You see your coworker freaking out, you see them drawing, and you see the other suspect moving. What do you do? Do you draw your gun/taser? I'd do that just going off of what my coworker has said. It's entirely reasonable to suspect there to be a gun. Now I'd like to run through two things that can happen from this point. The suspect either has a gun or does not. If I draw my gun, point it at the suspect, and wait till I see a gun (what the officers of the law are trained to do) is that not a reasonable reaction? What happens if I say "Oh I don't see it so I'm going to stand here and watch"? My partner and some innocent by-standards might very well get hurt because now I have to wait for my senses to catch up with what's going on before I react. I don't think it's unreasonable for cops to be allowed to go off what other cops are saying. If it can be proved that a cop has lied then that's another story. They should be punished to the full extent of the law for lying. Sadly though it's not illegal for them to lie to or about us, it's only illegal for us to lie to them.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  Of course it isn't unreasonable to work together. But the officers in the article were colluding to cover their asses for breaking the law, not cooperating to ensure mutual safety. And indeed, this is a pattern I read and hear about often, unfortunately.
  - gravypod 10y ago
    Oh cool, I didn't know you could read minds and see into the past! You should do me next! Honestly though, we will never objectively know what the officers are thinking in that situation nor know exactly what happened. If they were colluding or if they did think that the person was resisting arrest. Given all the information I have, it's not unreasonable that the officers did what they did. Someone walks up, tries to go towards a suspect, and is confrontational when asked for ID. That is a bit of a hint that something is off.
- soneil 10y ago
  The question here isn't their actions. It's their motives. There's a South Park sketch where the kids are out camping with the local gun nut, and he explains that they're not allowed to hunt most these animals - but they can act in self-defense. So he teaches them to shout "it's coming right for us!" before firing. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU ) So what the grandparent is alluding to, isn't whether it's correct to act appropriately if "it's coming right for us!". It's the culture of "stop resisting" used as robotically as your Miranda rights to later justify an escalation of violence. No-one's saying an officer shouldn't be allowed to respond to threats appropriately. We are saying we should be able to trust officers not to imagine threats for the sole purpose of justifying such an escalation (which, if taken at face value, is what the OP article describes). And yes, you're right; other than taking the protagonist's word for it, it is exceptionally difficult to prove one from the other. That's what makes the prospect so troubling.
- Shorel 10y ago
  It's clear that the policeman responding to the shout of the other one is acting correctly. The issue is only with the one who cries 'WOLF!' without actually spotting one, and no, he will not be punished to the full extent of the law, or to any extent for that matter. That's the entire point of this discussion.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  It isn't a problem trusting each other when working together. But honestly, the bigger issue is the reaction. Is freaking out part of the procedure? Is there nothing folks are trained to do except shoot? I'd much rather a dude get away - and no one getting hurt - than to have a shootout start from either side. I'm gonna guess it is more likely that the person would just run away than start shooting up innocent folks. I'm also completely comfortable with police not carrying weapons without calling it in, actually, because the result is citizens less afraid of cops and cops that think ahead slightly more - and treat people better.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

gravypod 10y ago

I'd like to ask you for a hypothetical. Say you are a police officer and one of your coworkers shouts "GUN" and you don't directly see one. You see your coworker freaking out, you see them drawing, and you see the other suspect moving. What do you do? Do you draw your gun/taser? I'd do that just going off of what my coworker has said. It's entirely reasonable to suspect there to be a gun. Now I'd like to run through two things that can happen from this point. The suspect either has a gun or does not. If I draw my gun, point it at the suspect, and wait till I see a gun (what the officers of the law are trained to do) is that not a reasonable reaction? What happens if I say "Oh I don't see it so I'm going to stand here and watch"? My partner and some innocent by-standards might very well get hurt because now I have to wait for my senses to catch up with what's going on before I react. I don't think it's unreasonable for cops to be allowed to go off what other cops are saying. If it can be proved that a cop has lied then that's another story. They should be punished to the full extent of the law for lying. Sadly though it's not illegal for them to lie to or about us, it's only illegal for us to lie to them.

jaredklewis 10y ago
Of course it isn't unreasonable to work together. But the officers in the article were colluding to cover their asses for breaking the law, not cooperating to ensure mutual safety. And indeed, this is a pattern I read and hear about often, unfortunately.
- gravypod 10y ago
  Oh cool, I didn't know you could read minds and see into the past! You should do me next! Honestly though, we will never objectively know what the officers are thinking in that situation nor know exactly what happened. If they were colluding or if they did think that the person was resisting arrest. Given all the information I have, it's not unreasonable that the officers did what they did. Someone walks up, tries to go towards a suspect, and is confrontational when asked for ID. That is a bit of a hint that something is off.
soneil 10y ago
The question here isn't their actions. It's their motives. There's a South Park sketch where the kids are out camping with the local gun nut, and he explains that they're not allowed to hunt most these animals - but they can act in self-defense. So he teaches them to shout "it's coming right for us!" before firing. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt6kKhlX8vU ) So what the grandparent is alluding to, isn't whether it's correct to act appropriately if "it's coming right for us!". It's the culture of "stop resisting" used as robotically as your Miranda rights to later justify an escalation of violence. No-one's saying an officer shouldn't be allowed to respond to threats appropriately. We are saying we should be able to trust officers not to imagine threats for the sole purpose of justifying such an escalation (which, if taken at face value, is what the OP article describes). And yes, you're right; other than taking the protagonist's word for it, it is exceptionally difficult to prove one from the other. That's what makes the prospect so troubling.
Shorel 10y ago
It's clear that the policeman responding to the shout of the other one is acting correctly. The issue is only with the one who cries 'WOLF!' without actually spotting one, and no, he will not be punished to the full extent of the law, or to any extent for that matter. That's the entire point of this discussion.
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
It isn't a problem trusting each other when working together. But honestly, the bigger issue is the reaction. Is freaking out part of the procedure? Is there nothing folks are trained to do except shoot? I'd much rather a dude get away - and no one getting hurt - than to have a shootout start from either side. I'm gonna guess it is more likely that the person would just run away than start shooting up innocent folks. I'm also completely comfortable with police not carrying weapons without calling it in, actually, because the result is citizens less afraid of cops and cops that think ahead slightly more - and treat people better.