3 ms·
> The police never viewed me through the lens of suspicion, they never talked to me in an accusatory tone. I felt more like they were checking that I was OK, ra
by usrusr 9y ago
> The police never viewed me through the lens of suspicion, they never talked to me in an accusatory tone. I felt more like they were checking that I was OK, rather than checking that I was a criminal.
As a European I wonder if this is "because Freedom", that the state-sceptical tradition laid out by the US constitution has created an expectation that police should never interact with anybody who isn't a criminal. That way, the attempt of making the police nicer has made them less nice, by removing nuance (unless you happen to never fall into the area of uncertainty, where nuance will be missed). Any thoughts on this by Americans?
- notdonspaulding 9y agoThe 4th amendment to the US Constitution reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." So, does that imply a skepticism of the state? Yes and no. Yes, in that if the police are interacting with you, they should have a reasonable belief about your involvement in a crime or that you have information which could reasonably aid their investigation. No, because the reality is the vast majority of police interactions in the US are brief, professional, lawful, and friendly.
- sathackr 9y agoAs a white American, I carefully watch what I say around police and generally do not trust them. Most police are incentivized to "solve" crimes, not solve crimes. They are exposed to the worst our society has to offer and this takes a toll on them. We as a society also feel that every crime can be solved and that an inability to solve the crime is incompetence. Sometimes the evidence doesn't quite match the person the police strongly feel committed the crime, so words get twisted, evidence gets adjusted to make things fit a little better. That conversation you had the other day telling an officer about your vacation in Florida can be turned around and then used as evidence against you in your trial for a murder that took place in the vicinity of the hotel you stayed at. It doesn't matter that you told the officer you were with your family the entire time, he may not remember that or remember it a bit differently than you. Now it's your word against his in court. Who is a jury going to believe? Of course, they would have to have other evidence to convict, some of it possibly slightly adjusted also. Even if you are cleared of the charge, that's not something anyone wants to go through. The humiliation, the cost, the damage to your relationships as people start to doubt you. The less info the police have about me and the less interaction I have with then, the lower the chance my name might pop into their heads when they're looking for a "person of interest." I'm not saying police want to send innocent people to jail. I'm saying their internal biases and desire to hold someone responsible for a crime causes them to twist the facts to ensure that the person they suspect gets convicted. If you have the time, you should watch this[1] video. It may provide some insight into the American criminal justice system. [1] https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE "Don't talk to the police"