3 ms·

The US situation seen from French eyes is quite surprising. Here we have the IGPN, which is "the Police of Police" so when an officer does something wrong there

The US situation seen from French eyes is quite surprising. Here we have the IGPN, which is "the Police of Police" so when an officer does something wrong there's an inquiry about it. But more importantly, there are sanctions. The system isn't perfect by any mean but to give you an example of how infrequent Police murders are, our local BLM movement had to find a 4 year old case as their "George Floyd".

legerdemain 6y ago
How many Palantir contracts does French law enforcement and counterintelligence pay for? Anything in addition to the DGSI contract?
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  I don't see the point you're trying to make, sorry. My answer was about Police brutality, not privacy.
  - legerdemain 6y ago
    Predictive policing is associated with selective policing, increasing the rate of police encounters for a set of people. Getting accosted by the police because I live in an area with higher crime is a danger to my well-being, because every encounter with the police carries risk.
    - jmnicolas 6y ago
      We're not speaking of the same thing hence my confusion. To reduce risks with Police encounters, they have to be accountable. It seems to me that the US Police would benefit from more accountability so I gave the example of the French Police. I have no idea what they do with predictive policing here, but if they use it I can tell you with confidence that it's not working at all.
    - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      It’s actually been demonstrated that more police in high crime areas reduces crime and increases safety. When they pull back, crime goes up. So I don’t know why people say this. I also don’t know why people think it makes more sense to divert police resources away from where crimes are happening. Not even the linked report agrees with this.
      - adamsea 6y ago
        > I also don’t know why people think it makes more sense to divert police resources away from where crimes are happening. Because so many people who live in those communities consistently continue to say they both fear and distrust the police as the police exist today. And because people in those communities continually say they need other forms of resources and support from our society - mainly a real path for economic opportunity, but also affordable healthy food (google food deserts), etc - and they understandably are pissed that as a society we’ll police the heck out of poor, mostly black neighborhoods, but not make sustained investments to help those communities the same way that our society does many (not all! mainly the wealthy ones) white neighborhoods. I don’t think anyone actually wants lawlessness. People want the opposite. They want equality under the law, and for the police to be held legally responsible for when they break it, in one of worst ways possible - by killing.
        lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        Great sounding theory, but not how it works.
        adamsea 6y ago
        Great sounding theory, but not how it works. ; ) In other words, one can use phrases like that in response to anything, whether it's true or not ;).
dominotw 6y ago
> The system isn't perfect by any mean but to give you an example of how infrequent Police murders are, our local BLM movement had to find a 4 year old case as their "George Floyd". Thats not same comparison though, people dont' own firearms in france like they do in USA.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Yes it does. Since a country is made by laws and statistics show the end-result of those policies. Fyi: It's perfectly fine to own a (normal ) fun in France with a license and a psychological test. Just like other places in Europe.
  - dominotw 6y ago
    sure you are right but gp comment seem to have implied that it was result of 'police of police' and enquiries. I was just saying that the variables are different to draw that conculsion.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  There is nothing about the mere existence of firearms in the nation that requires them to shoot at point that don't both possess them and make moves to use them on the police. If someone hasn't yet presented you with a threat of deadly violence you just don't get to use it on them.
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  You're right about legal firearms, there are much less of them in France. However criminals have no trouble equipping themselves, and Kalashnikov shootings are quite frequent between rival gangs.
  - adamsea 6y ago
    It’s no excuse but my understanding is the issue here in the US is sort of the random traffic stop - what if the person the cop stops has a gun? Thus every interaction with a probably “non-criminal” citizen or whatever carries fear and danger. Again, no excuse at all. But I do think there’s a relation between racist (and all) police violence, and the overall violence in our society - which firearm ownership is one aspect of.
wott 6y ago
> Here we have the IGPN, which is "the Police of Police" so when an officer does something wrong there's an inquiry about it. But more importantly, there are sanctions. The main role of IGPN is diverting legal action, by burying cases into their administrative enquiries and sanctions proposals. Filing a complaint at IGPN is mostly useless, you'd better file them directly in the regular justice system, otherwise it will almost never end up in the regular justice system because IGPN almost never forwards cases. Administrative sanctions are laughable. Firstly, as I said, they are not mandatory, they are propositions, it is up to the local superior(s) to decide what they do with it. Secondly, half of them are simple warnings and blames, i.e. completely without effect. Thirdly, most of the sanctions proposals come from internal affairs between constables, the complaints filed by regular citizens are buried. Also, there is the fundamental problem that IGPN is not an independent entity, but part of the police... > how infrequent Police murders are Despite people carrying much much less weapons than in the US, our police are more and more trigger happy, and when they shoot, they shoot to kill (and they get away with it, unless it was first-degree murder). They have no problem emptying a magazine in the back of car drivers, and pretend it was a life-saving reaction to an immediate threat. Take similar situations involving Police and Military: with the former, the assailant will end up with 8 9mm bullets in the body, 3 of them being lethal; with the later the assailant will be controlled (which allows for a trial way better than a Police execution), either with one 5.56mm bullet in the leg or more often without any shooting. And then there are the "non-lethal" weapons (flashballs and tasers) which were supposed to replace gun use, but that Police now use all the time for nothing, in situations where they would never have used a gun before. Was it last year that they managed to taze a naked (thus unarmed) man to death in a street?
- jmnicolas 6y ago
  > They have no problem emptying a magazine in the back of car drivers, and pretend it was a life-saving reaction to an immediate threat. Come on, this would have been the scandal of the decade and I would have heard about it. As long as you're not a yellow vest you don't have much to fear about the French Police ;) > either with one 5.56mm bullet in the leg As a civilian target shooter, I can tell you that shooting a leg is almost impossible for a standard shooter, unless you're very close and the target isn't moving (but then why do you need to shoot him ?). You should never employ a gun with the intent to "just" injure someone. A gun is lethal (even a leg shot can be fatal) most of the time and should be used (or not used) accordingly.

legerdemain 6y ago

How many Palantir contracts does French law enforcement and counterintelligence pay for? Anything in addition to the DGSI contract?

jmnicolas 6y ago
I don't see the point you're trying to make, sorry. My answer was about Police brutality, not privacy.
- legerdemain 6y ago
  Predictive policing is associated with selective policing, increasing the rate of police encounters for a set of people. Getting accosted by the police because I live in an area with higher crime is a danger to my well-being, because every encounter with the police carries risk.
  - jmnicolas 6y ago
    We're not speaking of the same thing hence my confusion. To reduce risks with Police encounters, they have to be accountable. It seems to me that the US Police would benefit from more accountability so I gave the example of the French Police. I have no idea what they do with predictive policing here, but if they use it I can tell you with confidence that it's not working at all.
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    It’s actually been demonstrated that more police in high crime areas reduces crime and increases safety. When they pull back, crime goes up. So I don’t know why people say this. I also don’t know why people think it makes more sense to divert police resources away from where crimes are happening. Not even the linked report agrees with this.
    - adamsea 6y ago
      > I also don’t know why people think it makes more sense to divert police resources away from where crimes are happening. Because so many people who live in those communities consistently continue to say they both fear and distrust the police as the police exist today. And because people in those communities continually say they need other forms of resources and support from our society - mainly a real path for economic opportunity, but also affordable healthy food (google food deserts), etc - and they understandably are pissed that as a society we’ll police the heck out of poor, mostly black neighborhoods, but not make sustained investments to help those communities the same way that our society does many (not all! mainly the wealthy ones) white neighborhoods. I don’t think anyone actually wants lawlessness. People want the opposite. They want equality under the law, and for the police to be held legally responsible for when they break it, in one of worst ways possible - by killing.
      - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
        Great sounding theory, but not how it works.
        adamsea 6y ago
        Great sounding theory, but not how it works. ; ) In other words, one can use phrases like that in response to anything, whether it's true or not ;).

dominotw 6y ago

> The system isn't perfect by any mean but to give you an example of how infrequent Police murders are, our local BLM movement had to find a 4 year old case as their "George Floyd". Thats not same comparison though, people dont' own firearms in france like they do in USA.

NicoJuicy 6y ago
Yes it does. Since a country is made by laws and statistics show the end-result of those policies. Fyi: It's perfectly fine to own a (normal ) fun in France with a license and a psychological test. Just like other places in Europe.
- dominotw 6y ago
  sure you are right but gp comment seem to have implied that it was result of 'police of police' and enquiries. I was just saying that the variables are different to draw that conculsion.
michaelmrose 6y ago
There is nothing about the mere existence of firearms in the nation that requires them to shoot at point that don't both possess them and make moves to use them on the police. If someone hasn't yet presented you with a threat of deadly violence you just don't get to use it on them.
jmnicolas 6y ago
You're right about legal firearms, there are much less of them in France. However criminals have no trouble equipping themselves, and Kalashnikov shootings are quite frequent between rival gangs.
- adamsea 6y ago
  It’s no excuse but my understanding is the issue here in the US is sort of the random traffic stop - what if the person the cop stops has a gun? Thus every interaction with a probably “non-criminal” citizen or whatever carries fear and danger. Again, no excuse at all. But I do think there’s a relation between racist (and all) police violence, and the overall violence in our society - which firearm ownership is one aspect of.

wott 6y ago

> Here we have the IGPN, which is "the Police of Police" so when an officer does something wrong there's an inquiry about it. But more importantly, there are sanctions. The main role of IGPN is diverting legal action, by burying cases into their administrative enquiries and sanctions proposals. Filing a complaint at IGPN is mostly useless, you'd better file them directly in the regular justice system, otherwise it will almost never end up in the regular justice system because IGPN almost never forwards cases. Administrative sanctions are laughable. Firstly, as I said, they are not mandatory, they are propositions, it is up to the local superior(s) to decide what they do with it. Secondly, half of them are simple warnings and blames, i.e. completely without effect. Thirdly, most of the sanctions proposals come from internal affairs between constables, the complaints filed by regular citizens are buried. Also, there is the fundamental problem that IGPN is not an independent entity, but part of the police... > how infrequent Police murders are Despite people carrying much much less weapons than in the US, our police are more and more trigger happy, and when they shoot, they shoot to kill (and they get away with it, unless it was first-degree murder). They have no problem emptying a magazine in the back of car drivers, and pretend it was a life-saving reaction to an immediate threat. Take similar situations involving Police and Military: with the former, the assailant will end up with 8 9mm bullets in the body, 3 of them being lethal; with the later the assailant will be controlled (which allows for a trial way better than a Police execution), either with one 5.56mm bullet in the leg or more often without any shooting. And then there are the "non-lethal" weapons (flashballs and tasers) which were supposed to replace gun use, but that Police now use all the time for nothing, in situations where they would never have used a gun before. Was it last year that they managed to taze a naked (thus unarmed) man to death in a street?

jmnicolas 6y ago
> They have no problem emptying a magazine in the back of car drivers, and pretend it was a life-saving reaction to an immediate threat. Come on, this would have been the scandal of the decade and I would have heard about it. As long as you're not a yellow vest you don't have much to fear about the French Police ;) > either with one 5.56mm bullet in the leg As a civilian target shooter, I can tell you that shooting a leg is almost impossible for a standard shooter, unless you're very close and the target isn't moving (but then why do you need to shoot him ?). You should never employ a gun with the intent to "just" injure someone. A gun is lethal (even a leg shot can be fatal) most of the time and should be used (or not used) accordingly.