9 ms·

The article is about people literally trying to get away with murder. The last two sentences are references to well-documented cases of police officers killing

by pornel 9y ago

The article is about people literally trying to get away with murder. The last two sentences are references to well-documented cases of police officers killing non-dangerous citizens. There's no reason to be polite about this.

ckastner 9y ago
The article is about a sub-group of these people, but the tone to me as well was one of sweeping generalizations. Edit (instead of replying to all of the individual replies): I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are systemic problems in police forces worldwide, just like there are systemic problems in any large organization, especially one endowed which so much executive power. However, any argument that paints a picture of "uniform equals bad" is, in my opinion, not only delusional, but is also a severe injustice to the good apples in public service, that is: in service to the public.
- OldGuuuuy 9y ago
  Ahh the bad apple defence.
- mikepurvis 9y ago
  Any member of the force, its leadership, or the surrounding politicians who is not 100% supporting the investigation and calling for heads to roll, is complicit. If that's a large enough group, then a sweeping generalization is absolutely warranted. "Bad apple" arguments only work if there's actual evidence of "good apples" working to expel the bad ones.
  - weberc2 9y ago
    There's no evidence that even 1% of all police are complicit. What is your standard for "large enough"?
    - mikepurvis 9y ago
      Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit officers standing with victims, insisting on justice for those guilty? Because that's the standard I'm calling for.
      - weberc2 9y ago
        "Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit muslims standing with victims of terrorism, insisting on justice for those guilty?" "Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit blacks standing with victims of black crime, insisting on justice for those guilty?" If you assume that everyone in a group is guilty of some crime committed by a tiny fraction because there isn't evidence that 99% of them condemn the guilty, then you're participating in a conspiracy and you're validating a dangerous line of reasoning that can be weaponized against anyone, including groups that you care about and/or belong to.
        mikepurvis 9y ago
        But police _as an institution_ are entrusted with the public safety. The relationships between the officers and the institution and the institution and the public are both totally different than for the other groups you named. It's not the same at all.
        weberc2 9y ago
        First of all, police in the U.S. aren't an institution--they're beholden to local governments (and state governments in the case of state patrol). Ergo you can't [reasonably] generalize about police nationally based on a handful of malfeasants. The idea that police nationally get together and conspire violence against the public or even a particular racial group is beyond absurd. This is among the most dubious of conspiracy theories, and I don't know how such theorists can hope to be regarded as credible, reasonable people.
- Pharylon 9y ago
  As long as police unions fight reform it's the institution as a whole that's the problem, not a small sub-group.
- piva00 9y ago
  I'm originally from Brazil and I hear that same argument about cops over there, that bad ones are a minority, that we shouldn't generalise. I don't buy it, the system itself enables this, if it didn't then those bad apples would have been detected and expelled before they could cause so much damage. It can be a minority doing that but they have affected so much that the whole itself is no longer trustworthy and requires reconstruction from the ground up, the foundations themselves have been damaged and as it would be for a structure or a car, when the base structure that supports everything else cannot be repaired you need a new one. That's what should happen in Baltimore, that's what should happen with the Brazilian military and civilian police, their foundations aren't good enough to be trusted anymore.
  - alphabettsy 9y ago
    Well the saying is bad apples spoil the bunch, and obviously in some cases the whole bunch is spoiled but we refuse to believe it, and instead still think we’re at the few bad apples part.
- ryanlol 9y ago
  Just like it’s a sweeping generalization to call ISIS members terrorists, right? Most of them don’t partake in such ops.
  - yters 9y ago
    So apparently our police force is equivalent to ISIS. I guess it would be better if gangs ruled the streets. At least they don't do as many bad things as the cops do.
    - Clubber 9y ago
      It's not either or. The Marines have much better trigger discipline that many cops that make the headlines lately.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
weberc2 9y ago
It's not about being polite, it's about coming to absurd conclusions that generalize a million people based on a handful of carefully selected malefactors. We can say, "we want to reduce police corruption" without peddling or subscribing to this complete nonsense (which is unfortunately The Root's wheelhouse).
- bjl 9y ago
  If it was only a handful of malefactors, then the rest of them should be forcing the bad apples out quickly, and calling for justice. The fact that the vast majority of police officers remain silent lends some credence to the generalisation.
  - talmand 9y ago
    The difference is that bad cops are a minor percentage, the fact that the rest protect their own is the generalization you are looking for. The other comment proposes the generalization that all cops will shoot you in the face, which is comically wrong on many levels.
krapp 9y ago
>There's no reason to be polite about this. There is - the tone of the article affects the tone of the thread. Hacker News is supposed to be about intellectually gratifying discussion, but an article whose purpose is to spark outrage results in comments full of invective and tedious boilerplate. Cathartic for people who want to rant about Americans and guns and ACAB... but we've already been there and done that and read that a hundred times.
- musage 9y ago
  > Cathartic for people who want to rant about Americans and guns and ACAB How are such straw men intellectually gratifying? How is that not tedious boilerplate? How is you reading something a hundred times even a factor compared to hundreds of murders swept under the rug? Don't wanna read about it, put an end to it.
  - krapp 9y ago
    I never said I didn't want to read about it - only that the bar should be higher than the bottom of the barrel. A subject like this can be discussed without resorting to polemics. > How is you reading something a hundred times even a factor compared to hundreds of murders swept under the rug? You have provided a perfect example of what this discussion does not need, and what articles like the above lead to, thank you.
    - musage 9y ago
      > I never said I didn't want to read about it Then what article do you propose instead? If none that matches your "bar" exists, will you write one? In the meantime, what's more important, people being aware that cops carrying toy guns around to plant is a thing, outrage or not, or them talking about cat robots or something? How many emotional "this is nice!" posts and comments are on here? How are they intellectual? Why is "outrage" not okay, but elation is? One difference that comes to mind immediately is that one of them can threaten the abuse of power, the other cannot. > only that the bar should be higher than the bottom of the barrel. Is this article just the worst outrage bait that is even possible to write, or is "bottom of the barrel" hyperbole? Why not simply ban sophistry? If you can be mad and still think and argue clearly, more power to you. If you can't do that even when you're not mad, tough luck. Wouldn't that be cool? > You have provided a perfect example of what this discussion does not need, and what articles like the above lead to, thank you. I asked a question, you don't even attempt to answer it. No matter how you describe cops carrying toy guns to plant on peoople they murdered (and in my mind, no matter what honest mistakes may have lead to it, once you plant a weapon it does become cold-blooded murder retroactively), it will always lead to "outrage". It ought to. Do you know, say, a book about the Holocaust that doesn't contain outrage bait? I mean, with such a huge and incredibly important subject, surely some people tried to give it the treatment you consider proper? But how would they do it without hiding what they're describing under euphemisms? > Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. -- Bertrand Russel The flipside of love is anger over abuse and murder. You cannot have it both ways. You can keep yourself together, you can react rationally, cold and precise even, but if you don't feel anything, if people feeling something annoys you more than what they are "outraged" about, what you find intellectually gratifying is kind of moot, because the only reason someone would care about it would be a solidarity and empathy you yourself deny.

by pornel 9y ago

ckastner 9y ago

The article is about a sub-group of these people, but the tone to me as well was one of sweeping generalizations. Edit (instead of replying to all of the individual replies): I'll be the first to acknowledge that there are systemic problems in police forces worldwide, just like there are systemic problems in any large organization, especially one endowed which so much executive power. However, any argument that paints a picture of "uniform equals bad" is, in my opinion, not only delusional, but is also a severe injustice to the good apples in public service, that is: in service to the public.

OldGuuuuy 9y ago
Ahh the bad apple defence.
mikepurvis 9y ago
Any member of the force, its leadership, or the surrounding politicians who is not 100% supporting the investigation and calling for heads to roll, is complicit. If that's a large enough group, then a sweeping generalization is absolutely warranted. "Bad apple" arguments only work if there's actual evidence of "good apples" working to expel the bad ones.
- weberc2 9y ago
  There's no evidence that even 1% of all police are complicit. What is your standard for "large enough"?
  - mikepurvis 9y ago
    Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit officers standing with victims, insisting on justice for those guilty? Because that's the standard I'm calling for.
    - weberc2 9y ago
      "Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit muslims standing with victims of terrorism, insisting on justice for those guilty?" "Is there evidence of 99% of supposedly non-complicit blacks standing with victims of black crime, insisting on justice for those guilty?" If you assume that everyone in a group is guilty of some crime committed by a tiny fraction because there isn't evidence that 99% of them condemn the guilty, then you're participating in a conspiracy and you're validating a dangerous line of reasoning that can be weaponized against anyone, including groups that you care about and/or belong to.
      - mikepurvis 9y ago
        But police _as an institution_ are entrusted with the public safety. The relationships between the officers and the institution and the institution and the public are both totally different than for the other groups you named. It's not the same at all.
        weberc2 9y ago
        First of all, police in the U.S. aren't an institution--they're beholden to local governments (and state governments in the case of state patrol). Ergo you can't [reasonably] generalize about police nationally based on a handful of malfeasants. The idea that police nationally get together and conspire violence against the public or even a particular racial group is beyond absurd. This is among the most dubious of conspiracy theories, and I don't know how such theorists can hope to be regarded as credible, reasonable people.
Pharylon 9y ago
As long as police unions fight reform it's the institution as a whole that's the problem, not a small sub-group.
piva00 9y ago
I'm originally from Brazil and I hear that same argument about cops over there, that bad ones are a minority, that we shouldn't generalise. I don't buy it, the system itself enables this, if it didn't then those bad apples would have been detected and expelled before they could cause so much damage. It can be a minority doing that but they have affected so much that the whole itself is no longer trustworthy and requires reconstruction from the ground up, the foundations themselves have been damaged and as it would be for a structure or a car, when the base structure that supports everything else cannot be repaired you need a new one. That's what should happen in Baltimore, that's what should happen with the Brazilian military and civilian police, their foundations aren't good enough to be trusted anymore.
- alphabettsy 9y ago
  Well the saying is bad apples spoil the bunch, and obviously in some cases the whole bunch is spoiled but we refuse to believe it, and instead still think we’re at the few bad apples part.
ryanlol 9y ago
Just like it’s a sweeping generalization to call ISIS members terrorists, right? Most of them don’t partake in such ops.
- yters 9y ago
  So apparently our police force is equivalent to ISIS. I guess it would be better if gangs ruled the streets. At least they don't do as many bad things as the cops do.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    It's not either or. The Marines have much better trigger discipline that many cops that make the headlines lately.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

weberc2 9y ago

It's not about being polite, it's about coming to absurd conclusions that generalize a million people based on a handful of carefully selected malefactors. We can say, "we want to reduce police corruption" without peddling or subscribing to this complete nonsense (which is unfortunately The Root's wheelhouse).

bjl 9y ago
If it was only a handful of malefactors, then the rest of them should be forcing the bad apples out quickly, and calling for justice. The fact that the vast majority of police officers remain silent lends some credence to the generalisation.
- talmand 9y ago
  The difference is that bad cops are a minor percentage, the fact that the rest protect their own is the generalization you are looking for. The other comment proposes the generalization that all cops will shoot you in the face, which is comically wrong on many levels.

krapp 9y ago

>There's no reason to be polite about this. There is - the tone of the article affects the tone of the thread. Hacker News is supposed to be about intellectually gratifying discussion, but an article whose purpose is to spark outrage results in comments full of invective and tedious boilerplate. Cathartic for people who want to rant about Americans and guns and ACAB... but we've already been there and done that and read that a hundred times.

musage 9y ago
> Cathartic for people who want to rant about Americans and guns and ACAB How are such straw men intellectually gratifying? How is that not tedious boilerplate? How is you reading something a hundred times even a factor compared to hundreds of murders swept under the rug? Don't wanna read about it, put an end to it.
- krapp 9y ago
  I never said I didn't want to read about it - only that the bar should be higher than the bottom of the barrel. A subject like this can be discussed without resorting to polemics. > How is you reading something a hundred times even a factor compared to hundreds of murders swept under the rug? You have provided a perfect example of what this discussion does not need, and what articles like the above lead to, thank you.
  - musage 9y ago
    > I never said I didn't want to read about it Then what article do you propose instead? If none that matches your "bar" exists, will you write one? In the meantime, what's more important, people being aware that cops carrying toy guns around to plant is a thing, outrage or not, or them talking about cat robots or something? How many emotional "this is nice!" posts and comments are on here? How are they intellectual? Why is "outrage" not okay, but elation is? One difference that comes to mind immediately is that one of them can threaten the abuse of power, the other cannot. > only that the bar should be higher than the bottom of the barrel. Is this article just the worst outrage bait that is even possible to write, or is "bottom of the barrel" hyperbole? Why not simply ban sophistry? If you can be mad and still think and argue clearly, more power to you. If you can't do that even when you're not mad, tough luck. Wouldn't that be cool? > You have provided a perfect example of what this discussion does not need, and what articles like the above lead to, thank you. I asked a question, you don't even attempt to answer it. No matter how you describe cops carrying toy guns to plant on peoople they murdered (and in my mind, no matter what honest mistakes may have lead to it, once you plant a weapon it does become cold-blooded murder retroactively), it will always lead to "outrage". It ought to. Do you know, say, a book about the Holocaust that doesn't contain outrage bait? I mean, with such a huge and incredibly important subject, surely some people tried to give it the treatment you consider proper? But how would they do it without hiding what they're describing under euphemisms? > Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. -- Bertrand Russel The flipside of love is anger over abuse and murder. You cannot have it both ways. You can keep yourself together, you can react rationally, cold and precise even, but if you don't feel anything, if people feeling something annoys you more than what they are "outraged" about, what you find intellectually gratifying is kind of moot, because the only reason someone would care about it would be a solidarity and empathy you yourself deny.