7 ms·

I think the legality of his command is independent of his actions taken as a consequence of it not being followed. I realize that this is exceptional but i wis

I think the legality of his command is independent of his actions taken as a consequence of it not being followed. I realize that this is exceptional but i wish we could ask (instead of "what's legal") -- "what do we expect the function of the police to be?" I'm not criticizing you or HN commenters, Im referring to the community involved. I just can't understand why the police, their unions and their superiors and peers don't ask this.

dgzl 9y ago
I've asked this question myself over the last few years and agree that it really needs to be addressed. I believe the truth is that we've created a new tier of government legal authority. The military has become incredibly powerful, while the requirements and danger of of being an officer have skyrocketed. I have no doubt we have a need for both of these positions, but the idea a lower-level peacekeeper existing and taking some/many responsibilities from a modern and militarized police officer interests me. At the same time, what functions should the police not fulfill that it currently is? Does anyone know about the Stanford prison experiments?
- mcphage 9y ago
  > danger of of being an officer have skyrocketed The danger of being a police officer are significantly lower than they have been in the past. The 70s was a high water mark, and 2013 was the lowest point in many years.
- rayiner 9y ago
  The militarized police officer role is not needed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, mob hits were being carried out in midtown Manhattan at nice restaurants. We didn’t have militarized police back then, we certainly don’t need it now.
- rendall 9y ago
  "while the requirements and danger of of being an officer have skyrocketed" As mcphage pointed, this is untrue. You are more likely to die on the job collecting garbage or driving for a living. "Police officer" doesn't even break the top 10 most dangerous US jobs. It's about on a par with "groundskeeper".

dgzl 9y ago

I've asked this question myself over the last few years and agree that it really needs to be addressed. I believe the truth is that we've created a new tier of government legal authority. The military has become incredibly powerful, while the requirements and danger of of being an officer have skyrocketed. I have no doubt we have a need for both of these positions, but the idea a lower-level peacekeeper existing and taking some/many responsibilities from a modern and militarized police officer interests me. At the same time, what functions should the police not fulfill that it currently is? Does anyone know about the Stanford prison experiments?

mcphage 9y ago
> danger of of being an officer have skyrocketed The danger of being a police officer are significantly lower than they have been in the past. The 70s was a high water mark, and 2013 was the lowest point in many years.
rayiner 9y ago
The militarized police officer role is not needed. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, mob hits were being carried out in midtown Manhattan at nice restaurants. We didn’t have militarized police back then, we certainly don’t need it now.
rendall 9y ago
"while the requirements and danger of of being an officer have skyrocketed" As mcphage pointed, this is untrue. You are more likely to die on the job collecting garbage or driving for a living. "Police officer" doesn't even break the top 10 most dangerous US jobs. It's about on a par with "groundskeeper".