4 ms·

I'm assuming that you have first-hand experience with a) the police system or b) the criminal courts and legal system this cop is referring to. Bonus points for

by wumi 18y ago

I'm assuming that you have first-hand experience with a) the police system or b) the criminal courts and legal system this cop is referring to. Bonus points for living in the inner-city and being familiar with drug trafficking. That would give us a lot more context into why you think what the cops were doing was wrong, and, maybe more importantly, what your solution is to improving the problem (if there is one, which, of course, you know all about). As Prometheus said in the comments below, it's obviously sometimes a wise decision to allow those to have an objective look at a situation -- not those who are looking at the issue from two inches in front of their face -- figure out how the system will operate. I would submit, however, that that model is very reminiscent of the "Twitter can't scale" debate, where everybody and their grandmother is offering gratuitous advice on how the team on the ground should scale their project when they don't even know how it's built, with what toolset, and what the core problems are.

icey 18y ago
If there are problems with the laws, then fix the laws. You obviously have not had many dealings with the legal system in the United States or elsewhere. Having experiences with it both here and in third world countries, I can tell you that "empowering" a police officer to be judge, jury & executioner is just begging for corruption. The system we have in the US is amazing. Certainly some people make it through the system without being punished as severely as they should, but that's the price you pay for having freedom. There is no accountability when there isn't a paper trail; there is no way to appeal a faulty judgement. Just because a cop thinks someone is guilty does not make them guilty.
- wumi 18y ago
  No slight meant. "If there are problems with the laws, then fix the laws." This, of course, is much easier said than done. If we're not listening to the cops to tell us how and what laws are broken, how will they be fixed? Accountability, is certainly a pressing issue ... but as you've been to third world countries, than you obviously know that a paper trail doesn't assure accountability or lack of corruption -- in fact, it is just that much harder to refute if there is a corrupt paper trail. The examples given, were a perp caught in the act of beating his wife, known drug dealers, and a drunk driver ... not such ambiguous crimes. I think we can agree there is a certain balance -- obviously the protectors and defenders need to be held to an accountable standard, but the cops brought up pertinent issues, and I just don't think you adequately addressed them with your comments.
bct 18y ago
I think we do have a pretty good idea how the legal system is built and what it's toolset is. More importantly, what a police officer is allowed to do has a much bigger effect on my life (and yours) than how Twitter handles their scaling problems.
- wumi 18y ago
  true, but the logic follows that it's not always the person from the outside looking in who has the best ability to address the problem.
  - bct 18y ago
    This is our society we're talking about. We don't all deal with these problems on a regular basis, but we're certainly not "on the outside looking in". Besides that, I don't think anyone thinks that outsiders always have the best solutions.
mixmax 18y ago
I happen to have some hands-on experience in this field since I have done a lot of techno raves, and have a certain familiarity with the associated drug dealing at these events. I never endorsed or liked it but it was pretty obvious what was going on. I would often get involved as a third party between the police and the dealers to try and barter when things got a bit rough. The problem is, paradoxically, that police officers are incredibly good at picking the good guys from the bad. I have seen cops walk in at raves and instantly spot the dealer. This gives them a tendency to see a black and white scenario where either you're the good guy or you're the bad guy - and if they have picked you out as the bad guy there's nothing you can do about it. Since they are right 90% of the time their faith in their ability is reinforced. It's the last 10% that's the problem. I have seen innocent people being beaten up by police because they are presumed to be the bad guys because of their attitude, the way they dress or however the police sniff them out. These 10% are why we have courts to do the judging based on evidence, and not officers based on their back-bone reactions on whether you are in the good guy or bad guy category.
- wumi 18y ago
  Those 10% every fight back (in the courts, I mean)?
  - mixmax 18y ago
    Not that I'm aware of. But a few have been given monetary compensation for unlawful arrest. (Standard pay of around $200 if the police can't give a good reason after they've arrested you) The reason for this is probably: 1) I live in a pretty peaceful country where people (generally) trust the police. 2) These people are 18 years old and basically just want to get the party on. Most of them have never talked to a lawyer, and probably couldn't be bothered to do so if they can avoid it.
ibsulon 18y ago
I happen to have a small bit of perspective on the situation. My mother grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and much of my extended family is still there. I spent part of my childhood in the environment, and there was a crack house across the street from my home for a small part of it. My cousin was in a gang. (This is in a major drug corridor in the southwest.) There's a large difference between a community member as a judge and a cop who doesn't even live in the area and views those who do with contempt. This colors their judgement, and the punishment often has more to do with the perception of the "defendant" than the actual crime. Is the justice system often worthless? Yes. Are the cops any better? Not really, and I'd find them much worse. Fundamentally, the problem is that Johnny can't get a job because he can't do basic math or read. Jobs within their reach aren't enough to pay bills, and those who can get the jobs that pay the bills leave the community, sometimes even their own families. (Those who can are often expected to provide for those who can't, which gets really tiring.) The role models are poor. Those who are raised in the inner city often speak with an accent that isn't accepted by those in business. And these things encourage those to get into markets that are less inhabited by convention --- grey markets and crime. Which the police don't understand -- they just see a thug. The solution is that the police should live in the neighborhood in which they're assigned, they should be from or previously lived in similar neighborhoods, and the judges that see cases should be similarly informed.
- chollida1 18y ago
  > The solution is that the police should live in the neighborhood in which they're assigned, There is a very good reason why most cops don't live in the area that they are assigned to. It's called pay back. If a cop arrests a gang member and they happen to be neighbours how long do you think it will be before something happens to the cop's wife or children when he is at work? Cops, by design, don't patrol area's where they live.
  - ibsulon 18y ago
    1. In this world, it's a lot easier to find someone's address and phone number, making payback much easier no matter where one lives. 2. While I understand the concern about the gang members and payback, the fundamental piece missing is that there is no accountability to one's community if you are an outsider to it. It breeds contempt, and it leads to the abuses of power that we see. There's a fundamental difference between "that gangbanger" and "Rosa's kid." (Reminding us of the recent XKCD comment.) Of course, crack changes everything and makes this ideal much harder, but the comments in the article show how disconnected from the communities these cops were. They no longer saw criminals even as human!
Tichy 18y ago
"why you think what the cops were doing was wrong" I am not the poster you replied to, but anyway: has it even to be pointed out what is wrong? Tattoo people's foreheads for drunk driving? What is this, the dark ages? Why not chop of people's left foot for speeding, that way we can make sure they'll never do it again??? "Judge Dredd" was putting it mildly for that cops power fantasies. Why doesn't he just establish himself as a little drug dealing war lord in his neighborhood, that would be all his dreams fulfilled.

by wumi 18y ago

icey 18y ago

If there are problems with the laws, then fix the laws. You obviously have not had many dealings with the legal system in the United States or elsewhere. Having experiences with it both here and in third world countries, I can tell you that "empowering" a police officer to be judge, jury & executioner is just begging for corruption. The system we have in the US is amazing. Certainly some people make it through the system without being punished as severely as they should, but that's the price you pay for having freedom. There is no accountability when there isn't a paper trail; there is no way to appeal a faulty judgement. Just because a cop thinks someone is guilty does not make them guilty.

wumi 18y ago
No slight meant. "If there are problems with the laws, then fix the laws." This, of course, is much easier said than done. If we're not listening to the cops to tell us how and what laws are broken, how will they be fixed? Accountability, is certainly a pressing issue ... but as you've been to third world countries, than you obviously know that a paper trail doesn't assure accountability or lack of corruption -- in fact, it is just that much harder to refute if there is a corrupt paper trail. The examples given, were a perp caught in the act of beating his wife, known drug dealers, and a drunk driver ... not such ambiguous crimes. I think we can agree there is a certain balance -- obviously the protectors and defenders need to be held to an accountable standard, but the cops brought up pertinent issues, and I just don't think you adequately addressed them with your comments.

bct 18y ago

I think we do have a pretty good idea how the legal system is built and what it's toolset is. More importantly, what a police officer is allowed to do has a much bigger effect on my life (and yours) than how Twitter handles their scaling problems.

wumi 18y ago
true, but the logic follows that it's not always the person from the outside looking in who has the best ability to address the problem.
- bct 18y ago
  This is our society we're talking about. We don't all deal with these problems on a regular basis, but we're certainly not "on the outside looking in". Besides that, I don't think anyone thinks that outsiders always have the best solutions.

mixmax 18y ago

I happen to have some hands-on experience in this field since I have done a lot of techno raves, and have a certain familiarity with the associated drug dealing at these events. I never endorsed or liked it but it was pretty obvious what was going on. I would often get involved as a third party between the police and the dealers to try and barter when things got a bit rough. The problem is, paradoxically, that police officers are incredibly good at picking the good guys from the bad. I have seen cops walk in at raves and instantly spot the dealer. This gives them a tendency to see a black and white scenario where either you're the good guy or you're the bad guy - and if they have picked you out as the bad guy there's nothing you can do about it. Since they are right 90% of the time their faith in their ability is reinforced. It's the last 10% that's the problem. I have seen innocent people being beaten up by police because they are presumed to be the bad guys because of their attitude, the way they dress or however the police sniff them out. These 10% are why we have courts to do the judging based on evidence, and not officers based on their back-bone reactions on whether you are in the good guy or bad guy category.

wumi 18y ago
Those 10% every fight back (in the courts, I mean)?
- mixmax 18y ago
  Not that I'm aware of. But a few have been given monetary compensation for unlawful arrest. (Standard pay of around $200 if the police can't give a good reason after they've arrested you) The reason for this is probably: 1) I live in a pretty peaceful country where people (generally) trust the police. 2) These people are 18 years old and basically just want to get the party on. Most of them have never talked to a lawyer, and probably couldn't be bothered to do so if they can avoid it.

ibsulon 18y ago

I happen to have a small bit of perspective on the situation. My mother grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and much of my extended family is still there. I spent part of my childhood in the environment, and there was a crack house across the street from my home for a small part of it. My cousin was in a gang. (This is in a major drug corridor in the southwest.) There's a large difference between a community member as a judge and a cop who doesn't even live in the area and views those who do with contempt. This colors their judgement, and the punishment often has more to do with the perception of the "defendant" than the actual crime. Is the justice system often worthless? Yes. Are the cops any better? Not really, and I'd find them much worse. Fundamentally, the problem is that Johnny can't get a job because he can't do basic math or read. Jobs within their reach aren't enough to pay bills, and those who can get the jobs that pay the bills leave the community, sometimes even their own families. (Those who can are often expected to provide for those who can't, which gets really tiring.) The role models are poor. Those who are raised in the inner city often speak with an accent that isn't accepted by those in business. And these things encourage those to get into markets that are less inhabited by convention --- grey markets and crime. Which the police don't understand -- they just see a thug. The solution is that the police should live in the neighborhood in which they're assigned, they should be from or previously lived in similar neighborhoods, and the judges that see cases should be similarly informed.

chollida1 18y ago
> The solution is that the police should live in the neighborhood in which they're assigned, There is a very good reason why most cops don't live in the area that they are assigned to. It's called pay back. If a cop arrests a gang member and they happen to be neighbours how long do you think it will be before something happens to the cop's wife or children when he is at work? Cops, by design, don't patrol area's where they live.
- ibsulon 18y ago
  1. In this world, it's a lot easier to find someone's address and phone number, making payback much easier no matter where one lives. 2. While I understand the concern about the gang members and payback, the fundamental piece missing is that there is no accountability to one's community if you are an outsider to it. It breeds contempt, and it leads to the abuses of power that we see. There's a fundamental difference between "that gangbanger" and "Rosa's kid." (Reminding us of the recent XKCD comment.) Of course, crack changes everything and makes this ideal much harder, but the comments in the article show how disconnected from the communities these cops were. They no longer saw criminals even as human!

Tichy 18y ago

"why you think what the cops were doing was wrong" I am not the poster you replied to, but anyway: has it even to be pointed out what is wrong? Tattoo people's foreheads for drunk driving? What is this, the dark ages? Why not chop of people's left foot for speeding, that way we can make sure they'll never do it again??? "Judge Dredd" was putting it mildly for that cops power fantasies. Why doesn't he just establish himself as a little drug dealing war lord in his neighborhood, that would be all his dreams fulfilled.