3 ms·

I don't entirely agree. There are lots of situations you have to learn how to navigate safely in society. How to use a crosswalk. How to address a judge. How to

by Dove 9y ago

I don't entirely agree. There are lots of situations you have to learn how to navigate safely in society. How to use a crosswalk. How to address a judge. How to prevent house fires. I think putting the burden of citizen safety 100% on police is like putting the burden of pedestrian safety 100% on cars. Yeah, the driver has greater responsibility and is held to a higher standard of caution... but this sort of thing really is a lot more practical if people know to stay on sidewalks. I for one want to have police in society, and I want them to be able to deal with very dangerous and violent people as safely as they can. I think needing to know how to safely surrender to them if they mistake me for a dangerous person is a reasonable price to pay. I don't understand this whole "I shouldn't need to know" perspective. Of course you need to know. Police are part of society, and so we need to understand how to be around them.

tacomonstrous 9y ago
>I think putting the burden of citizen safety 100% on police is like putting the burden of pedestrian safety 100% on cars. Yeah, the driver has greater responsibility and is held to a higher standard of caution... but this sort of thing really is a lot more practical if people know to stay on sidewalks. This doesn't make any sense. Many pedestrians are drivers at other points in time. They have some idea of what to expect when they're on the other side of the coin. It's not a good analogy. >don't understand this whole "I shouldn't need to know" perspective. Of course you need to know. Police are part of society, and so we need to understand how to be around them. Of course one should know that it is a good idea to obey instructions from a police officer. Beyond that, it is difficult for the average person to figure out how to act appropriately in a stressful situation that could possibly end in death if some gesture is interpreted in an unexpected fashion by a trained officer. You cannot train the general populace to tackle something like this! At least not at any reasonable scale, especially when different police officers have different standards for what constitutes dangerous behavior. It is incumbent on authorities to make sure that they train their officers appropriately to behave in a way that deescalates interactions with the civilian population.

by Dove 9y ago

tacomonstrous 9y ago

>I think putting the burden of citizen safety 100% on police is like putting the burden of pedestrian safety 100% on cars. Yeah, the driver has greater responsibility and is held to a higher standard of caution... but this sort of thing really is a lot more practical if people know to stay on sidewalks. This doesn't make any sense. Many pedestrians are drivers at other points in time. They have some idea of what to expect when they're on the other side of the coin. It's not a good analogy. >don't understand this whole "I shouldn't need to know" perspective. Of course you need to know. Police are part of society, and so we need to understand how to be around them. Of course one should know that it is a good idea to obey instructions from a police officer. Beyond that, it is difficult for the average person to figure out how to act appropriately in a stressful situation that could possibly end in death if some gesture is interpreted in an unexpected fashion by a trained officer. You cannot train the general populace to tackle something like this! At least not at any reasonable scale, especially when different police officers have different standards for what constitutes dangerous behavior. It is incumbent on authorities to make sure that they train their officers appropriately to behave in a way that deescalates interactions with the civilian population.