3 ms·

The police seemingly operate with impunity. If you accuse them, they will deny wrongdoing. Trying to gaslight people about their tactics seems like par for the

The police seemingly operate with impunity. If you accuse them, they will deny wrongdoing. Trying to gaslight people about their tactics seems like par for the course. The question is: who will police the police? They can't be trusted to police themselves as we're seeing.

curiousgal 6y ago
If the President can behave that way why can't they..
afandian 6y ago
One thing I find fascinating about the USA, from the outside, is the preoccupation with the rituals of democracy (and simultaneous disenfranchisement and gerrymandering). A huge number of public posts that in the UK would be handled as run-of-the-mill employment seem to be voted on in the States. Surely that is the nominated mechanism of mandate and subsequent accountability? In the UK we have policing by consent which more or less means the police systems works because as a country we want it to, rather than that they have a union and weapons. We've recently experimented with elected police commissionsers which, to many, seemed a very alien concept. Our police's history is far from squeaky clean (we have our fair share of corruption, institutional racism and so on), but in general, no-one walks around worrying that they will be murdered with impunity. Not perfect but preferable. I think the question is as much how you get there as much as where you're heading.
- Yanu-3452 6y ago
  Step 1 is disarm the police.. UK police aren't armed, which means that they are well trained in de-escalation because it's the main thing that's protecting them. One of the biggest worries of introducing tasers is that it diminishes that aspect. Why try to calm someone down if you can reach for your taser instead. In the US they reach for a handgun instead. Disarm the police. That might require disarming the population too. So step 1 is ban the guns. Which tragically means the USA will likely stay at step 0 for a very long time, because it seems the second amendment is held to a higher regard than the first.
  - afandian 6y ago
    Some of the most calm Americans I know have a gun or two, it's so normal. Given America is where it is, I can't see how you take that first step. That's the deadlock.
    - brenden2 6y ago
      @dang why was the parent comment flagged? I read it before it was flagged, and it didn't seem inflammatory in any way. Can you please comment?
      - afandian 6y ago
        Yeah (commenter) I thought it was reasonable - what could I have done better?
      - detaro 6y ago
        If you want to talk to dang, send him an email instead of hoping he randomly sees your comment. Also, flagging is something users do, he also can just guess why they might have done so
        brenden2 6y ago
        I prefer to do it in an open forum. I think he watches comments for "@dang" because I see people do it all the time with a follow-up from him.
  - sukilot 6y ago
    > Disarm the police. That might require disarming the population too. I totally agree -- As long as I am last in line to turn in my gun. And many civilian and government gun owners agree with me. Remember that the military has guns too, which shoot just as straight domestically and abroad, so we also need to disarm the army, which requires disarming all foreign nations. Now what? I think we'll need a Paxos or Raft cluster or something.
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  there are a couple of criminological issues too which are important with regards to UK and USA. Concept of punishment - in the USA punishment is most often about vengeance, retribution and restitution. It's why victims families can watch the criminal get executed when on death row. In many other countries and the UK there is no death penalty, and punishment is more about the deprivation of liberty of the criminal and less or not at all about restitution of the victim. Victims in the UK don't really get much of a look in outside of a victim statement in court after sentencing. Criminals are prosecuted by the Crown and not on behalf of the victim. In the USA it's common for civil cases to be used to get more restitution against criminals. A stronger example would be looking at Scandinavian countries and their approach to prison and punishment and rehabilitation. Police self defence - in the USA, the police are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves and their buddies against danger, which explains the more liberal use of guns. Literally "shoot first and ask questions later" is allowed if the officer feels their life is in danger. But mainly the protection of the police is the most important thing, above the protection of the public. In the UK and someplaces elsewhere, the police consider pro-active self defence as not automatically allowed. They will often not engage and retreat and get backup in numbers if under danger. They do not rank self protection as the most important thing.
  - kyleee 6y ago
    "They will often not engage and retreat and get backup in numbers if under danger." That's extremely common in the US as well

curiousgal 6y ago

If the President can behave that way why can't they..

afandian 6y ago

One thing I find fascinating about the USA, from the outside, is the preoccupation with the rituals of democracy (and simultaneous disenfranchisement and gerrymandering). A huge number of public posts that in the UK would be handled as run-of-the-mill employment seem to be voted on in the States. Surely that is the nominated mechanism of mandate and subsequent accountability? In the UK we have policing by consent which more or less means the police systems works because as a country we want it to, rather than that they have a union and weapons. We've recently experimented with elected police commissionsers which, to many, seemed a very alien concept. Our police's history is far from squeaky clean (we have our fair share of corruption, institutional racism and so on), but in general, no-one walks around worrying that they will be murdered with impunity. Not perfect but preferable. I think the question is as much how you get there as much as where you're heading.

Yanu-3452 6y ago
Step 1 is disarm the police.. UK police aren't armed, which means that they are well trained in de-escalation because it's the main thing that's protecting them. One of the biggest worries of introducing tasers is that it diminishes that aspect. Why try to calm someone down if you can reach for your taser instead. In the US they reach for a handgun instead. Disarm the police. That might require disarming the population too. So step 1 is ban the guns. Which tragically means the USA will likely stay at step 0 for a very long time, because it seems the second amendment is held to a higher regard than the first.
- afandian 6y ago
  Some of the most calm Americans I know have a gun or two, it's so normal. Given America is where it is, I can't see how you take that first step. That's the deadlock.
  - brenden2 6y ago
    @dang why was the parent comment flagged? I read it before it was flagged, and it didn't seem inflammatory in any way. Can you please comment?
    - afandian 6y ago
      Yeah (commenter) I thought it was reasonable - what could I have done better?
    - detaro 6y ago
      If you want to talk to dang, send him an email instead of hoping he randomly sees your comment. Also, flagging is something users do, he also can just guess why they might have done so
      - brenden2 6y ago
        I prefer to do it in an open forum. I think he watches comments for "@dang" because I see people do it all the time with a follow-up from him.
- sukilot 6y ago
  > Disarm the police. That might require disarming the population too. I totally agree -- As long as I am last in line to turn in my gun. And many civilian and government gun owners agree with me. Remember that the military has guns too, which shoot just as straight domestically and abroad, so we also need to disarm the army, which requires disarming all foreign nations. Now what? I think we'll need a Paxos or Raft cluster or something.
thinkingemote 6y ago
there are a couple of criminological issues too which are important with regards to UK and USA. Concept of punishment - in the USA punishment is most often about vengeance, retribution and restitution. It's why victims families can watch the criminal get executed when on death row. In many other countries and the UK there is no death penalty, and punishment is more about the deprivation of liberty of the criminal and less or not at all about restitution of the victim. Victims in the UK don't really get much of a look in outside of a victim statement in court after sentencing. Criminals are prosecuted by the Crown and not on behalf of the victim. In the USA it's common for civil cases to be used to get more restitution against criminals. A stronger example would be looking at Scandinavian countries and their approach to prison and punishment and rehabilitation. Police self defence - in the USA, the police are allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves and their buddies against danger, which explains the more liberal use of guns. Literally "shoot first and ask questions later" is allowed if the officer feels their life is in danger. But mainly the protection of the police is the most important thing, above the protection of the public. In the UK and someplaces elsewhere, the police consider pro-active self defence as not automatically allowed. They will often not engage and retreat and get backup in numbers if under danger. They do not rank self protection as the most important thing.
- kyleee 6y ago
  "They will often not engage and retreat and get backup in numbers if under danger." That's extremely common in the US as well