4 ms·

Many comments talk about training of the police. there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how t

Many comments talk about training of the police. there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc. This lecture from a law school professor was very enlightening to me : NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

aaomidi 6y ago
> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. No. > To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc. Sure, but no. The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations. If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong.
- jojobas 6y ago
  >If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong. Does that apply if a suspect pulls a gun or a knife on them? De-escalation clearly failed, must be their fault.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations This is an absolutely naive position to take. Police have no such obligation, and citizens should absolutely be educated and informed on their rights.
  - Lammy 6y ago
    There's even worse legal precedent than not being responsible for de-escalation: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-laws...
    - foolinaround 6y ago
      https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    > Police have no such obligation Maybe the _sophisticated_ approach here is to say they should have that obligation?
- foolinaround 6y ago
  Why such an emphatic no? it is of course the officer's job to deal with the situation. -- here is an analogy of a pedestrian crossing. It is the job of the motorist to pay attention, but it helps to train the pedestrian as well. While the responsibility for the accident is put on the motorist, wont the pedestrian be better off with the training?
- Lammy 6y ago
  The 2nd Amendment explicitly disagrees with you :) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Everybody always remembers that last part, but take a look at the very beginning. Three branches—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—deal in the world of law and are supposed to keep each other in check and balance. Three branches—Militia, Police, and Military—deal in the world of force and are supposed to keep each other in check and balance. Except now in 2020 we're being told nobody in the first group should ever need a tool to defend themselves, and the other two groups resemble each other more and more every day.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Three branches—Militia, Police, and Military—deal in the world of force and are supposed to keep each other in check That's not actually the underlying model of the 2nd Amendment. The underlying model of the second amendment is that professional standing armed forces are a threat to liberty (even when nominally dedicated to external security, because they are inevitably applied internally; permanent paramilitart police were not a thing at the time of the 2nd.) Because of this, it is essentially to have effective citizen militia that can be called up for internal and external security needs, so that governments aren't tempted to create permanent forces for this purposes beyond cadres to support the mobilization of the militia. The 2A isn't about having a balanced triangle (“police” didn't really exist for several decades after the 2A), it's about having one of those three obviate the need for the others. There is probably a good debate to be had about whether that model was durably workable at the time, whether it is workable in the modern world, and whether it would in particular be reachable from where the US is now. But we've lost that in our 2A debates.
- arkis22 6y ago
  You're basically arguing that when you get into any situation with a police officer you are absolved of all personal responsibility. Do you actually consider it prudent to ignore situations of danger and not respond to them with the proper context?
  - sneak 6y ago
    Perhaps peacefully interacting with government employees shouldn’t carry mortal danger at all.
    - dbrueck 6y ago
      Thankfully, the amount of mortal danger for peaceful interactions with government employees is already incredibly close to zero.
      - sneak 6y ago
        People are protesting because that’s simply untrue.
        dbrueck 6y ago
        Really? Which of the recent high profile incidents didn't involve someone physically resisting the police and/or acting aggressively to others while repeatedly ignoring the police yelling at them to back off? For each case you can find (if you can find any at all), there are millions - yes, literally millions - of police interactions that don't end that way. If you interact with the police peacefully, the odds of you experiencing any violence are virtually zero.
        tosstbosacct5 6y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
- dbrueck 6y ago
  > The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations. If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong. I strongly disagree, and submit that a big part of the problem is this exact mentality. Police should get gobs of training, they have to take the high road, they have to learn to not let their buttons get pushed, etc., etc. - all of those things are true. But the primary responsibility has always rested and should always rest on the shoulders of individual citizens that the police are interacting with. People need to be accountable for their actions. I'm very sorry when anyone loses their life due to an altercation with the police, but the elephant in the room is that pretty much all of these are completely and easily preventable if people show even a smidgen of accountability for their actions. The common factors across victims of police shooting is not race, but (a) commission of a crime and (b) resisting arrest. Remove either from the equation and the death rate drops dramatically; remove both and it's virtually zero. Yes, let's continue to figure out how to improve law enforcement. If we find actual instances of racism, let's work to eradicate them. Whatever problems exist in policing, let's study them and fix them. But let's not pretend for a moment that any real progress will be made while there is a pervasive attitude that crime and/or belligerence towards cops isn't a massive part of the problem. Why does this study show that so many black people want the same or more police presence? Because the overwhelming majority of them (and everyone else) obey the law and, in the event they do interact with the police, refrain from punching them, fleeing the scene, etc.
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    > Police should get gobs of training, they have to take the high road, they have to learn to not let their buttons get pushed, etc., etc. - all of those things are true. But the primary responsibility has always rested and should always rest on the shoulders of individual citizens that the police are interacting with. People need to be accountable for their actions. Maybe if cops can't control their emotions they shouldn't be given a gun and then immune to essentially any misuse of the gun? > (a) commission of a crime and (b) resisting arrest. We have a judicial system for a reason. The police isn't the arbiter of justice. Especially when the historical reasons for the formation of police in many countries and the US was to control slaves, former slaves, and economic activists. > Whatever problems exist in policing, let's study them and fix them. The studies are all out there. Are you refusing to take a look? > while there is a pervasive attitude that crime and/or belligerence towards cops isn't a massive part of the problem. You're trying to shine a piece of turd and say it'll get better. A piece of turd, no matter how shiny, is going to be a piece of turd. Police, the way & the numbers they have today, are not necessary for a functioning society. meanwhile study: Results are based on a Gallup Panel web study completed by 36,463 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, fielded June 23-July 6, 2020. The survey was conducted in English. Individuals without internet access were not covered by this study. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based panel of U.S. adults whom Gallup selects using address-based sampling methods and random-digit-dial phone interviews that cover landlines and cellphones. The sample for this study was weighted to be demographically representative of the U.S. adult population, using the most recent Current Population Survey figures. So they excluded the lowest income Black Americans. And the issue here is that the question just asked "should there be less police" - that's not what the police abolition movement is arguing for. How would've the results been if the question asked: "Should we reduce police force presence in your neighbourhood by 90% while also ensuring that you will get more grants for education, healthcare, and housing" Or even: "Should we abolish policing (while still maintaining a skeleton force to respond to aggressive incidents) in exchange for providing housing for everyone making below a certain amount of money?"
- geofft 6y ago
  The claim is not "Citizens need to take responsibility for de-escalating situations," the claim is "If the citizenry, as a whole, were less deferential to police and more aware of when police were overstepping their authority, police would be less inclined to abuse their authority." It's not the job of any individual citizen to fix the police, but it sure is the job of the democratic society as a whole to fix it (because if you make it the police's job, they're certainly not going to actually do it).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. Agreed. Citizens need to understand their Constitutional rights and their role as civil masters, and stop deferring, when setting policy, to totalitarians that are supposed to be their paid agents, but prefer to invert that power structure at the expense of citizen rights. The state of civics education in America is appalling, as is the state of history education that would demonstrate the cost of the problem.
gitgud 6y ago
> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. I don't want to live in a world where I need training in order to survive a police encounter...

aaomidi 6y ago

> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. No. > To recognize when to listen to a police officer, how to identify if the officer steps out of line, what rights are afforded, etc. Sure, but no. The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations. If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong.

jojobas 6y ago
>If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong. Does that apply if a suspect pulls a gun or a knife on them? De-escalation clearly failed, must be their fault.
tomnipotent 6y ago
> The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations This is an absolutely naive position to take. Police have no such obligation, and citizens should absolutely be educated and informed on their rights.
- Lammy 6y ago
  There's even worse legal precedent than not being responsible for de-escalation: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-laws...
  - foolinaround 6y ago
    https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
- aaomidi 6y ago
  > Police have no such obligation Maybe the _sophisticated_ approach here is to say they should have that obligation?
foolinaround 6y ago
Why such an emphatic no? it is of course the officer's job to deal with the situation. -- here is an analogy of a pedestrian crossing. It is the job of the motorist to pay attention, but it helps to train the pedestrian as well. While the responsibility for the accident is put on the motorist, wont the pedestrian be better off with the training?
Lammy 6y ago
The 2nd Amendment explicitly disagrees with you :) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Everybody always remembers that last part, but take a look at the very beginning. Three branches—Executive, Legislative, and Judicial—deal in the world of law and are supposed to keep each other in check and balance. Three branches—Militia, Police, and Military—deal in the world of force and are supposed to keep each other in check and balance. Except now in 2020 we're being told nobody in the first group should ever need a tool to defend themselves, and the other two groups resemble each other more and more every day.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Three branches—Militia, Police, and Military—deal in the world of force and are supposed to keep each other in check That's not actually the underlying model of the 2nd Amendment. The underlying model of the second amendment is that professional standing armed forces are a threat to liberty (even when nominally dedicated to external security, because they are inevitably applied internally; permanent paramilitart police were not a thing at the time of the 2nd.) Because of this, it is essentially to have effective citizen militia that can be called up for internal and external security needs, so that governments aren't tempted to create permanent forces for this purposes beyond cadres to support the mobilization of the militia. The 2A isn't about having a balanced triangle (“police” didn't really exist for several decades after the 2A), it's about having one of those three obviate the need for the others. There is probably a good debate to be had about whether that model was durably workable at the time, whether it is workable in the modern world, and whether it would in particular be reachable from where the US is now. But we've lost that in our 2A debates.
arkis22 6y ago
You're basically arguing that when you get into any situation with a police officer you are absolved of all personal responsibility. Do you actually consider it prudent to ignore situations of danger and not respond to them with the proper context?
- sneak 6y ago
  Perhaps peacefully interacting with government employees shouldn’t carry mortal danger at all.
  - dbrueck 6y ago
    Thankfully, the amount of mortal danger for peaceful interactions with government employees is already incredibly close to zero.
    - sneak 6y ago
      People are protesting because that’s simply untrue.
      - dbrueck 6y ago
        Really? Which of the recent high profile incidents didn't involve someone physically resisting the police and/or acting aggressively to others while repeatedly ignoring the police yelling at them to back off? For each case you can find (if you can find any at all), there are millions - yes, literally millions - of police interactions that don't end that way. If you interact with the police peacefully, the odds of you experiencing any violence are virtually zero.
        tosstbosacct5 6y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Breonna_Taylor
dbrueck 6y ago
> The police have all the responsibility to de-escalate situations. If they're not doing that then they're the ones in the wrong. I strongly disagree, and submit that a big part of the problem is this exact mentality. Police should get gobs of training, they have to take the high road, they have to learn to not let their buttons get pushed, etc., etc. - all of those things are true. But the primary responsibility has always rested and should always rest on the shoulders of individual citizens that the police are interacting with. People need to be accountable for their actions. I'm very sorry when anyone loses their life due to an altercation with the police, but the elephant in the room is that pretty much all of these are completely and easily preventable if people show even a smidgen of accountability for their actions. The common factors across victims of police shooting is not race, but (a) commission of a crime and (b) resisting arrest. Remove either from the equation and the death rate drops dramatically; remove both and it's virtually zero. Yes, let's continue to figure out how to improve law enforcement. If we find actual instances of racism, let's work to eradicate them. Whatever problems exist in policing, let's study them and fix them. But let's not pretend for a moment that any real progress will be made while there is a pervasive attitude that crime and/or belligerence towards cops isn't a massive part of the problem. Why does this study show that so many black people want the same or more police presence? Because the overwhelming majority of them (and everyone else) obey the law and, in the event they do interact with the police, refrain from punching them, fleeing the scene, etc.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  > Police should get gobs of training, they have to take the high road, they have to learn to not let their buttons get pushed, etc., etc. - all of those things are true. But the primary responsibility has always rested and should always rest on the shoulders of individual citizens that the police are interacting with. People need to be accountable for their actions. Maybe if cops can't control their emotions they shouldn't be given a gun and then immune to essentially any misuse of the gun? > (a) commission of a crime and (b) resisting arrest. We have a judicial system for a reason. The police isn't the arbiter of justice. Especially when the historical reasons for the formation of police in many countries and the US was to control slaves, former slaves, and economic activists. > Whatever problems exist in policing, let's study them and fix them. The studies are all out there. Are you refusing to take a look? > while there is a pervasive attitude that crime and/or belligerence towards cops isn't a massive part of the problem. You're trying to shine a piece of turd and say it'll get better. A piece of turd, no matter how shiny, is going to be a piece of turd. Police, the way & the numbers they have today, are not necessary for a functioning society. meanwhile study: Results are based on a Gallup Panel web study completed by 36,463 U.S. adults, aged 18 and older, fielded June 23-July 6, 2020. The survey was conducted in English. Individuals without internet access were not covered by this study. The Gallup Panel is a probability-based panel of U.S. adults whom Gallup selects using address-based sampling methods and random-digit-dial phone interviews that cover landlines and cellphones. The sample for this study was weighted to be demographically representative of the U.S. adult population, using the most recent Current Population Survey figures. So they excluded the lowest income Black Americans. And the issue here is that the question just asked "should there be less police" - that's not what the police abolition movement is arguing for. How would've the results been if the question asked: "Should we reduce police force presence in your neighbourhood by 90% while also ensuring that you will get more grants for education, healthcare, and housing" Or even: "Should we abolish policing (while still maintaining a skeleton force to respond to aggressive incidents) in exchange for providing housing for everyone making below a certain amount of money?"
geofft 6y ago
The claim is not "Citizens need to take responsibility for de-escalating situations," the claim is "If the citizenry, as a whole, were less deferential to police and more aware of when police were overstepping their authority, police would be less inclined to abuse their authority." It's not the job of any individual citizen to fix the police, but it sure is the job of the democratic society as a whole to fix it (because if you make it the police's job, they're certainly not going to actually do it).

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 6y ago

> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. Agreed. Citizens need to understand their Constitutional rights and their role as civil masters, and stop deferring, when setting policy, to totalitarians that are supposed to be their paid agents, but prefer to invert that power structure at the expense of citizen rights. The state of civics education in America is appalling, as is the state of history education that would demonstrate the cost of the problem.

gitgud 6y ago

> there needs to be basic training for citizens as well. I don't want to live in a world where I need training in order to survive a police encounter...