4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause It's a slippery slope, and that's not always a logi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause It's a slippery slope, and that's not always a logical fallicy: https://www.aristotl.io/?s=slippery#slippery-slope https://www.aristotl.io/?s=slippery#slippery-slope If you want to do that, it would need to apply to everyone.

sparkie 6y ago
The system that exists is unequal protection. The police are protected by a culture of the State looking after itself and its public servants. There is supposed to be an independent body which investigates police crimes, but the two are hand in hand in letting their men off the hook. This is also a slippery slope in the other direction. If they know they are essentially immune, then their limiters are removed in their behavior - making them more likely to be negligent and cause accidents, which in turn, they get let off for, strengthening the idea that police are mostly immune from prosecution. One could argue that a police officer could voluntarily give up their "equal protection" right as a pledge for entering the force. If they are committed to serving and protecting, then such declaration could give confidence to those are meant to be being served. Right now, almost everyone is sceptical of the police in one way or another. The system is rigged and it stinks.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  I agree except your 3rd paragraph, because I dont think that would have the intended result. It breaks the findamental concept. I read your comment as agreeing with Equal Protection. In the end we are talking about the penality for framing or depervation of rights under the color of law. It should apply to everyone. It's easy to point out the problem, but proposing a slution is much harder. Juries are the real firewall, but they depend on the knowledgebase of the jurors. It's one of these things that a direct "of x then y" prob isnt going to work. Giving the public direct access to lower level raw information is what I would like to start with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232250 Imagine if we could script Pacer stats.... EDIT: hit my comment limit for the night, good point about the DA; in that case, it's the next level up from juries; the electorate. The DA is only accountable to them if they make them so, and public opinion does not always wait until the next election, bad PR is fixed astonishingly quickly if the DA's boss feels the pressure. If you have another idea, please propose it.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Jurors don't help unless the DA actually prosecutes. And that doesn't seem to happen that often?
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    tagging @Dang Dang could you check if the comment limiting on that user was a mistake?
    - valuearb 6y ago
      So it’s common to censor posters this way?
      - dang 6y ago
        https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20rate%20limit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... HN is a moderated site. Whether that's censorship or not is mostly a word game; people use that word when they don't like a thing and different words when they do.
        jakeogh 6y ago
        It's not an easy job. Thank you.
    - dang 6y ago
      It doesn't feel right for me to comment about an account in response to someone else's post. Maybe I'll say a general thing instead: We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars—and we're happy to remove the rate limit when people commit to following the site guidelines in the future. hn@ycombinator.com is the best place to contact about this.

sparkie 6y ago

The system that exists is unequal protection. The police are protected by a culture of the State looking after itself and its public servants. There is supposed to be an independent body which investigates police crimes, but the two are hand in hand in letting their men off the hook. This is also a slippery slope in the other direction. If they know they are essentially immune, then their limiters are removed in their behavior - making them more likely to be negligent and cause accidents, which in turn, they get let off for, strengthening the idea that police are mostly immune from prosecution. One could argue that a police officer could voluntarily give up their "equal protection" right as a pledge for entering the force. If they are committed to serving and protecting, then such declaration could give confidence to those are meant to be being served. Right now, almost everyone is sceptical of the police in one way or another. The system is rigged and it stinks.

jakeogh 6y ago
I agree except your 3rd paragraph, because I dont think that would have the intended result. It breaks the findamental concept. I read your comment as agreeing with Equal Protection. In the end we are talking about the penality for framing or depervation of rights under the color of law. It should apply to everyone. It's easy to point out the problem, but proposing a slution is much harder. Juries are the real firewall, but they depend on the knowledgebase of the jurors. It's one of these things that a direct "of x then y" prob isnt going to work. Giving the public direct access to lower level raw information is what I would like to start with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23232250 Imagine if we could script Pacer stats.... EDIT: hit my comment limit for the night, good point about the DA; in that case, it's the next level up from juries; the electorate. The DA is only accountable to them if they make them so, and public opinion does not always wait until the next election, bad PR is fixed astonishingly quickly if the DA's boss feels the pressure. If you have another idea, please propose it.
- kelnos 6y ago
  Jurors don't help unless the DA actually prosecutes. And that doesn't seem to happen that often?
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  tagging @Dang Dang could you check if the comment limiting on that user was a mistake?
  - valuearb 6y ago
    So it’s common to censor posters this way?
    - dang 6y ago
      https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20rate%20limit&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que... HN is a moderated site. Whether that's censorship or not is mostly a word game; people use that word when they don't like a thing and different words when they do.
      - jakeogh 6y ago
        It's not an easy job. Thank you.
  - dang 6y ago
    It doesn't feel right for me to comment about an account in response to someone else's post. Maybe I'll say a general thing instead: We rate limit accounts when they post too many low-quality comments too quickly and/or get involved in flamewars—and we're happy to remove the rate limit when people commit to following the site guidelines in the future. hn@ycombinator.com is the best place to contact about this.