4 ms·

I think because we all made the presumption that obvious police abuses would be punished once we had video evidence. We didn't take into consideration the just

I think because we all made the presumption that obvious police abuses would be punished once we had video evidence. We didn't take into consideration the justice system's complete lack of appetite at holding officers responsible for egregious violations of life, civil liberties, and property rights.

panpanna 6y ago
After watching John Olivers latest on YouTube, I am starting to think that police unions are the main problem.
nickff 6y ago
I don't understand how anyone is surprised; unions are doing their job, by extracting the maximum possible benefit for a plurality of their members. This is what unions do, and it just happens to be a very ugly benefit in this case. Perhaps it is that many people assigned unions and government at-large the role of 'good guys', with corporations and criminals being the 'bad guys'? In any case, most libertarians (such as myself) have been skeptical of the police and unions (especially public-sector) for a very long time. We've been talking about these issues for decades, and wondering why nobody else noticed what was going on with the militarization and lack of accountability of police. I suppose we finally have our answer.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  Surprise is different and separate for outrage, though they sometimes go by the same name. It may be that the unions are doing “their job,” but like all organizations in America, a police union has a social responsibility to not be evil, which it completely failed at.
  - nickff 6y ago
    Well, you think that they are doing evil, but from the union's perspective, they need to choose whether to err on the side of under-protecting their members, or over-protecting them. The police unions (and most others) choose to over-protect their members.
    - gowld 6y ago
      It looks like they might be overprotecting themselves out of their jobs, after building a 30-year case on video of their inability to self-regulate across dozens of cities.
- Fronzie 6y ago
  There are countries were unions are a healthy counter-balance to large corporations. Without them, it would be every employee against a big institute.
  - nickff 6y ago
    What large corporation is a public sector union counter-balancing?
commandlinefan 6y ago
Well, I always think about the Rodney King case: you and I saw a very damning video, played over and over again, on the news that looked incriminating as hell. But when the case went to trial, the jury voted not guilty. What did they see that we didn't? Did they make the right choice, after having seen a lot more evidence than we did? Or are jury trials just inherently untrustworthy?
- tehwebguy 6y ago
  If they lived in LA they were probably just trying to not get their shit kicked in by the cops too!
- mindslight 6y ago
  I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions for people who can get a shred of empathy from a jury. It's easy to proclaim that someone is a murderer when they're just a symbol on a screen and you're powerless. But being handed the reigns to their life and told to weigh the situation closely is a completely different experience. Of course juries also require a unanimous agreement, and there is always the bootlicking contingent. Jury nullification is great anti-state concept in general, but often ends up used to remove accountability for sub-state power structures.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions Short answer: Yes, both today and historically, especially when we meted out more brutal punishments. Literature on the history of jury nullification invariably points this out. However, juror leniency has waned as jury pools have become increasingly composed of people who don't live in the same neighborhoods or socio-economic conditions as the defendants and therefore lack a more realistic perspective of the risks and benefits of leniency rather than being driven by fear. See, generally, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William Stuntz.
- wahern 6y ago
dredmorbius 6y ago
It's not only no appetite, but in many cases, no legal culpability. Qualified immunity being a major element of that, at least in civil law. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470083/qualified-immunity-a-doctrine-that-made-it-much-harder-to-sue-the-police https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470083/qualified-immunity-... See also asset forfeiture.
- thephyber 6y ago
  I've also read that unions see the writing on the wall that QI might be peeled back and are lobbying to get their renewed employment contracts to get the city/county/state indemnify the department/officers. It's not the QI doctrine of old, but it serves the same purpose.

panpanna 6y ago

After watching John Olivers latest on YouTube, I am starting to think that police unions are the main problem.

nickff 6y ago

I don't understand how anyone is surprised; unions are doing their job, by extracting the maximum possible benefit for a plurality of their members. This is what unions do, and it just happens to be a very ugly benefit in this case. Perhaps it is that many people assigned unions and government at-large the role of 'good guys', with corporations and criminals being the 'bad guys'? In any case, most libertarians (such as myself) have been skeptical of the police and unions (especially public-sector) for a very long time. We've been talking about these issues for decades, and wondering why nobody else noticed what was going on with the militarization and lack of accountability of police. I suppose we finally have our answer.

ironmagma 6y ago
Surprise is different and separate for outrage, though they sometimes go by the same name. It may be that the unions are doing “their job,” but like all organizations in America, a police union has a social responsibility to not be evil, which it completely failed at.
- nickff 6y ago
  Well, you think that they are doing evil, but from the union's perspective, they need to choose whether to err on the side of under-protecting their members, or over-protecting them. The police unions (and most others) choose to over-protect their members.
  - gowld 6y ago
    It looks like they might be overprotecting themselves out of their jobs, after building a 30-year case on video of their inability to self-regulate across dozens of cities.
Fronzie 6y ago
There are countries were unions are a healthy counter-balance to large corporations. Without them, it would be every employee against a big institute.
- nickff 6y ago
  What large corporation is a public sector union counter-balancing?

commandlinefan 6y ago

Well, I always think about the Rodney King case: you and I saw a very damning video, played over and over again, on the news that looked incriminating as hell. But when the case went to trial, the jury voted not guilty. What did they see that we didn't? Did they make the right choice, after having seen a lot more evidence than we did? Or are jury trials just inherently untrustworthy?

tehwebguy 6y ago
If they lived in LA they were probably just trying to not get their shit kicked in by the cops too!
mindslight 6y ago
I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions for people who can get a shred of empathy from a jury. It's easy to proclaim that someone is a murderer when they're just a symbol on a screen and you're powerless. But being handed the reigns to their life and told to weigh the situation closely is a completely different experience. Of course juries also require a unanimous agreement, and there is always the bootlicking contingent. Jury nullification is great anti-state concept in general, but often ends up used to remove accountability for sub-state power structures.
- wahern 6y ago
  > I have to wonder if the tendency for capital and other extreme punishments actually ends up being a deterrent to convictions Short answer: Yes, both today and historically, especially when we meted out more brutal punishments. Literature on the history of jury nullification invariably points this out. However, juror leniency has waned as jury pools have become increasingly composed of people who don't live in the same neighborhoods or socio-economic conditions as the defendants and therefore lack a more realistic perspective of the risks and benefits of leniency rather than being driven by fear. See, generally, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice by William Stuntz.
wahern 6y ago

dredmorbius 6y ago

It's not only no appetite, but in many cases, no legal culpability. Qualified immunity being a major element of that, at least in civil law. https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470083/qualified-immunity-a-doctrine-that-made-it-much-harder-to-sue-the-police https://www.npr.org/2020/06/08/872470083/qualified-immunity-... See also asset forfeiture.

thephyber 6y ago
I've also read that unions see the writing on the wall that QI might be peeled back and are lobbying to get their renewed employment contracts to get the city/county/state indemnify the department/officers. It's not the QI doctrine of old, but it serves the same purpose.