4 ms·

This article misses the point. These types of "cultural" issues are important but secondary- the issue is that the police are breaking laws and getting away wit

This article misses the point. These types of "cultural" issues are important but secondary- the issue is that the police are breaking laws and getting away with it because of qualified immunity. They need to be held accountable, otherwise is the culture really going to change?

arkadiyt 6y ago
Culture is _the_ problem, everything stems from the culture. Also qualified immunity only applies to civil liability, it does nothing to protect police from criminal prosecution (which still doesn't happen, because culture).
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  Are you sure it doesn't protect police from criminal prosecution? I don't see any mention of a distinction between civil or criminal violations in anything I have read about it. Furthermore this case[0] it seems to me could have been criminally prosecuted if not for qualified immunity. [0]: https://casetext.com/case/graham-v-connor https://casetext.com/case/graham-v-connor
6AA4FD 6y ago
On the flip side, the cultural change will be very slow if police keep feeling pressured or entitled to break laws because of the warrior mentality, horribly injure or kill someone, and then get severely punished. I think that qualified immunity might be more important (because a change to that will force departments to change how they police) but it's a bit much to say that the article misses the point, especially when it was written in 2015 specifically about the "warrior mindset" not "how to end police brutality."
treis 6y ago
I saw a video of police breaking up looting by rushing in and hitting everyone they could with their batons. When that's the plan and the people in the charge think it's a good plan that's the root of the issue. To send people out there to do that and then charging them with crimes if they go too far seems a bit hypocritical to me. It needs to be a top down change where the police use the least violence possible and have the least amount of confrontation possible.
- jrockway 6y ago
  I think the underlying problem here is that we accept the trade of hitting people with batons to protect property. It's priced into the insurance. To make progress, we have to move away from the mentality that this is acceptable. There will be pushback because a large amount of infrastructure is required. Everything that can be stolen will have to have a traceable serial number. We'll have to look for those serial numbers on things like eBay and the Amazon marketplace. Insurance costs will go up. The customer experience for people buying things will go down. Massive changes in how we think about the world will have to occur. But it seems like the direction we have to go -- we don't need to be damaging people's bodies (you only get one!) just because they're stealing a watch. Prosecute them. Don't let them make money from their crime. But we have to draw the line somewhere. (The whole arresting protestors thing also confuses me. Free speech is the foundation of our country. We should be celebrating people risking their lives to fight for an issue that matters in the middle of a pandemic. But instead, we "kettle" them, hit them with batons, and send them to jail. It's not good, and shows that our society has a LONG way to go. What's nice about being so far from the goal, though, is that small changes can have a big impact. The first 99% of the work is as hard as the next 1% after all.)
  - JoeSmithson 6y ago
    I think GP's point was more that it's just shitty tactics. Compare the MPS de-escalating the protest in London today; https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1269315641217073152 https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1269315641217073152 Officers move in a clear way, they do not pre-emptively arm themselves, they do not get hung up on non-violent stragglers, they take their time. There have been two days of protests in London which are explicitly anti-police, have been very passionate, have had flashes of violence, but have NOT escalated. Aside from the racial aspect, a lot of videos I've seen from US recently have just been crap in a professional sense.
sophacles 6y ago
We have to replace all of the officers in one fell swoop. I don't care if we get some good ones too... because they can't be that good if they allow their fellows to act this way. I know this will also wipe out a lot of institutional knowledge, but in this case, that's a bonus. That institutional knowledge mostly amounts to "how to bully minorities and get away with it", and I don't think we should put people who know that sort of thing in a position to use it.
- new2628 6y ago
  What about police officers who are from minorities. Would you kick them out too or you would spare them?
amalcon 6y ago
I think the focus on qualified immunity is a little bit misplaced. If something is explicitly illegal, qualified immunity doesn't apply. There are several reasons that police get away with breaking laws, but I think the core of it is the holding from Castle Rock v. Gonzalez that the police are neither required to enforce the law nor protect the public. Do we really expect the police to follow up on each other's violations if there's no duty to do their jobs at all?
chongli 6y ago
I disagree. The warrior culture of policing sets the baseline for all behaviour. Officers justify lawbreaking to one another out of solidarity. The belief that “it’s a war out there and enemies can jump out at any moment” underlies the concept that the law is secondary to officer survival. When you create a proper guardian police force, officers become friendly and respected community members; they become good neighbours. What then stops them from committing crimes against members of the public is the same thing that stops most family members from committing crimes against one another: a sense of belonging, investment, and care for a community. The best example of this style of policing that I can think of is the classic small town police in small town dramas or sitcoms like Corner Gas [1]. Notice how the police officers eat at the local diner which serves as a third place [2] for the community. Of course, the disappearance of third places from American social life is another big factor in this complicated puzzle. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPrBAEqGwKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPrBAEqGwKE [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
- sukilot 6y ago
  You are conflating TV with reality. In Minneapolis police just shot and killed a BBQ owner who had been feeding them for free for years.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    a BBQ owner who had been feeding them for free for years That's concerning, isn't it? There are federal and state statutes about bribery and gratuities, and the fact that police officers took him up on the offer day by day is worrying for many reasons. And at the end of the day it didn't even help him.

arkadiyt 6y ago

Culture is _the_ problem, everything stems from the culture. Also qualified immunity only applies to civil liability, it does nothing to protect police from criminal prosecution (which still doesn't happen, because culture).

6AA4FD 6y ago
Are you sure it doesn't protect police from criminal prosecution? I don't see any mention of a distinction between civil or criminal violations in anything I have read about it. Furthermore this case[0] it seems to me could have been criminally prosecuted if not for qualified immunity. [0]: https://casetext.com/case/graham-v-connor https://casetext.com/case/graham-v-connor

6AA4FD 6y ago

On the flip side, the cultural change will be very slow if police keep feeling pressured or entitled to break laws because of the warrior mentality, horribly injure or kill someone, and then get severely punished. I think that qualified immunity might be more important (because a change to that will force departments to change how they police) but it's a bit much to say that the article misses the point, especially when it was written in 2015 specifically about the "warrior mindset" not "how to end police brutality."

treis 6y ago

I saw a video of police breaking up looting by rushing in and hitting everyone they could with their batons. When that's the plan and the people in the charge think it's a good plan that's the root of the issue. To send people out there to do that and then charging them with crimes if they go too far seems a bit hypocritical to me. It needs to be a top down change where the police use the least violence possible and have the least amount of confrontation possible.

jrockway 6y ago
I think the underlying problem here is that we accept the trade of hitting people with batons to protect property. It's priced into the insurance. To make progress, we have to move away from the mentality that this is acceptable. There will be pushback because a large amount of infrastructure is required. Everything that can be stolen will have to have a traceable serial number. We'll have to look for those serial numbers on things like eBay and the Amazon marketplace. Insurance costs will go up. The customer experience for people buying things will go down. Massive changes in how we think about the world will have to occur. But it seems like the direction we have to go -- we don't need to be damaging people's bodies (you only get one!) just because they're stealing a watch. Prosecute them. Don't let them make money from their crime. But we have to draw the line somewhere. (The whole arresting protestors thing also confuses me. Free speech is the foundation of our country. We should be celebrating people risking their lives to fight for an issue that matters in the middle of a pandemic. But instead, we "kettle" them, hit them with batons, and send them to jail. It's not good, and shows that our society has a LONG way to go. What's nice about being so far from the goal, though, is that small changes can have a big impact. The first 99% of the work is as hard as the next 1% after all.)
- JoeSmithson 6y ago
  I think GP's point was more that it's just shitty tactics. Compare the MPS de-escalating the protest in London today; https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1269315641217073152 https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1269315641217073152 Officers move in a clear way, they do not pre-emptively arm themselves, they do not get hung up on non-violent stragglers, they take their time. There have been two days of protests in London which are explicitly anti-police, have been very passionate, have had flashes of violence, but have NOT escalated. Aside from the racial aspect, a lot of videos I've seen from US recently have just been crap in a professional sense.

sophacles 6y ago

We have to replace all of the officers in one fell swoop. I don't care if we get some good ones too... because they can't be that good if they allow their fellows to act this way. I know this will also wipe out a lot of institutional knowledge, but in this case, that's a bonus. That institutional knowledge mostly amounts to "how to bully minorities and get away with it", and I don't think we should put people who know that sort of thing in a position to use it.

new2628 6y ago
What about police officers who are from minorities. Would you kick them out too or you would spare them?

amalcon 6y ago

I think the focus on qualified immunity is a little bit misplaced. If something is explicitly illegal, qualified immunity doesn't apply. There are several reasons that police get away with breaking laws, but I think the core of it is the holding from Castle Rock v. Gonzalez that the police are neither required to enforce the law nor protect the public. Do we really expect the police to follow up on each other's violations if there's no duty to do their jobs at all?

chongli 6y ago

I disagree. The warrior culture of policing sets the baseline for all behaviour. Officers justify lawbreaking to one another out of solidarity. The belief that “it’s a war out there and enemies can jump out at any moment” underlies the concept that the law is secondary to officer survival. When you create a proper guardian police force, officers become friendly and respected community members; they become good neighbours. What then stops them from committing crimes against members of the public is the same thing that stops most family members from committing crimes against one another: a sense of belonging, investment, and care for a community. The best example of this style of policing that I can think of is the classic small town police in small town dramas or sitcoms like Corner Gas [1]. Notice how the police officers eat at the local diner which serves as a third place [2] for the community. Of course, the disappearance of third places from American social life is another big factor in this complicated puzzle. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPrBAEqGwKE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPrBAEqGwKE [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place

sukilot 6y ago
You are conflating TV with reality. In Minneapolis police just shot and killed a BBQ owner who had been feeding them for free for years.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  a BBQ owner who had been feeding them for free for years That's concerning, isn't it? There are federal and state statutes about bribery and gratuities, and the fact that police officers took him up on the offer day by day is worrying for many reasons. And at the end of the day it didn't even help him.