5 ms·

The people involved are getting a huge benefit and there is no reason to report it. Others who don't receive the benefit either don't know about it or are shou

by pravus 6y ago

The people involved are getting a huge benefit and there is no reason to report it. Others who don't receive the benefit either don't know about it or are shouted down. There is a culture in the US that the police are pristine warriors of justice and any accusations of wrong-doing are denied and ignored. There are also many laws that specifically protect LEO and government officials in general because there is a natural ethos that everyone working for The Good is always Good and whatever Bad they did must have been in the duty and service to The Good. Immunity is easy to achieve when the entire legal system wants you to be immune as a class and we are currently having a debate about qualified immunity regarding police in the US. In my view it is the entire system that is corrupt. A fish rots from its head as they say.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I think the bigger problem is that the general population does not want the law enforced. There is also a sentiment that there are so many laws on the books that there is nothing wrong with breaking them or LEO letting people off the hook. If the average person is good and still commits "3 felonies a day", then it is easy to believe that LEO is giving people a reprieve from systemic injustice, opposed to carrying out injustice. Nobody shames an individual who get out of a speeding ticket with a warning, when the individual was randomly selected from 10,000 other speeders the same road that day.
- teknopaul 6y ago
  I agree with your sentiment, but clearly "the bigger problem" is that the system is corrupt.
  - _jal 6y ago
    You don't get one without the other. The collection of all laws is such that even, consistent application would be untenable. That which cannot work, doesn't; instead, enforcement becomes selective. At that point, you're doomed; your system only works by being a system "...of people, not laws".
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I disagree. I think this type corruption is inevitable when you have legal system where the police are responsible for arbitrarily enforcing the law on an arbitrary subset of offenders. If you remove or universally enforce the law, the grey area for this type of corruption will go away.
  - thereisnospork 6y ago
    Sure the system is corrupt, but selective enforcement is how corruption happens. Remove the mechanism and there stops being anything to be corrupt over. If everyone got pulled over and ticketed for speeding, every time, it would be impossible to e.g. pull over black drivers disproportionately, or give a warning in exchange for a PBA card.
    - cm2187 6y ago
      Or charged for rioting and looting
- jacobolus 6y ago
  > If the average person is good and still commits "3 felonies a day", then it is easy to believe that LEO is giving people a reprieve from systemic injustice, opposed to carrying out injustice. It’s the same people arguing for maximal support of the police (e.g. to beat the shit out of people for no reason, to confiscate innocent people’s cash and just keep it, to threaten people with made up charges and get them to sign false confessions, to fabricate evidence, to illegally stalk and harass anti-police-brutality activists, etc., and suffer no consequences) and arguing that friends of the police shouldn’t get punished for their infractions if they have the special card. (And also the same people arguing against both things.) More realistically, the little “courtesy cards” are a result of tribalism and corruption, and have nothing whatsoever to do with “systemic injustice”.
  - s1artibartfast 6y ago
    I think you misunderstood my point and I don't see any contradiction. I am saying that the general public is not very offended by "courtesy cards" because they think the law is bad to begin with. If I don't think speeding and jaywalking should be a crime, I certainly don't care about people using cards to get off the hook for these crimes. I see this as a separate issue from police brutality, confiscation, ect.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      The people promoting these courtesy cards have absolutely no problem with speeding and jaywalking being crimes, and in fact are proponents of police discretion to e.g. constantly pull black people over and give them tickets for made up infractions just for the fun of it. It isn’t the “friends and family” of the police who want to end stop-and-frisk, decriminalize minor drug offenses, end cash bail, stop funding police departments from speed traps, .... You have diametrically misunderstood the point of the “3 felonies a day” book/argument, and you are shoehorning it in here to confidently promote your pet theory, without evidence.
      - s1artibartfast 6y ago
        >The people promoting these courtesy cards have absolutely no problem with speeding and jaywalking being crimes, and in fact are proponents of police discretion I agree on both counts. They are proponents of police discretion to let them off for crimes they dont want to be charged for, and have no problem with it. >to e.g. constantly pull black people over and give them tickets for made up infractions just for the fun of it. It isn’t the “friends and family” of the police who want to end stop-and-frisk, decriminalize minor drug offenses, end cash bail, stop funding police departments from speed traps, ... I disagree and dont know where you are getting this from. The characters in the article clearly wanted to get off the hook themselves, but that doesnt mean they want to see minorities targeted and abused. I want to get off the hook when stopped for speeding, but that doesnt mean I want police to be shooting and terrorizing minorities. >You have diametrically misunderstood the point of the “3 felonies a day” book/argument, and you are shoehorning it in here to confidently promote your pet theory, without evidence. Again, I disagree. The point of the book is that everyone is a criminal and LEO can currently use their discretion to go after anyone they choose to. MY POINT, is that by making 100% of citizens criminals, we have eroded public support for the enforcement of the law. Those who get get caught for everyday crimes are considered unlucky, and those who get off the hook are celebrated. We should enforce the laws we have uniformly, and get rid of the ones we don't want. This is far superior to unwanted laws on the books and rarely enforcing them hoping we wont be affected. Infrequently enforced laws are terrible for a number of reasons, but a big one is that those without power and connections are the ones who are most likely to be affected.
- scarface74 6y ago
  I think the bigger problem is that the general population does not want the law enforced They want the law enforced against people who don’t look like them. See the “War on Drugs” vs. “Drug Abuse is a Disease” when it hit “rural America”.
throwaway894345 6y ago
I think this is mostly right, but I don't think there are many arguing that police are universally good or perfect as much as (1) they have a hard job and (2) we should be more focused on violent offenders than police corruption. I'm certainly not advocating for these arguments, but I believe it's important to accurately understand that which you fight against.
- ultrarunner 6y ago
  I think you're right, but the excuses probably vary by location. In my area (which has very low petty traffic law enforcement), people do argue that cops are all good, usually with appeals to "the rule of law". I often wonder if this is seen as identical to "the rule of law enforcement". Mentioning the compliance rate with the speed limit (or gun control, for that matter) just makes them angry and the discussion ends. Mentioning nonviolent crimes like cannabis possession is usually met with a claim that drugs require violence, followed by the same anger as they shut down. There's a lot of discordant opinions held about police, at least near me. I suspect a lot of the counterproductive emotional reactions are a result of the fact that so much force is involved, but I'm not sure how to mitigate that.
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I don't doubt your experiences at all, but my suspicion is that people are articulating their positions poorly, and their anger and defensiveness is explained by a frustration at their own inability to adequately articulate and defend their position. Usually when I disarmingly unpack the "rule of law" issue with people, their argument is more akin to "if we crack down on police, then it will empower criminals" which is a different disagreement than whether all cops are good or all cops are bad. Their argument is perhaps more aptly described as "we have to choose between mostly good cops and mostly bad criminals and we'd rather take the former". They would rather police rough up a few protesters if it means dissuading rioters from burning the neighborhood down. Of course, I firmly believe we can have our cake and eat it too--after all, better policing seems to exist in Europe, but it takes some faith and imagination, especially when I'm honest with myself about the ways in which we differ from Europe (wealth inequality, diversity, corruption, 2A rights, etc). I'm a pretty educated, articulate person who has thought a lot about these issues. I can certainly appreciate how the every-man would see things differently. I think that means it's incumbent upon us to communicate a vision of things working properly that addresses our unique challenges, and I certainly don't blame people for failing to be persuaded by the riots, protests, and generally demeaning rhetoric.

by pravus 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I think the bigger problem is that the general population does not want the law enforced. There is also a sentiment that there are so many laws on the books that there is nothing wrong with breaking them or LEO letting people off the hook. If the average person is good and still commits "3 felonies a day", then it is easy to believe that LEO is giving people a reprieve from systemic injustice, opposed to carrying out injustice. Nobody shames an individual who get out of a speeding ticket with a warning, when the individual was randomly selected from 10,000 other speeders the same road that day.

teknopaul 6y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but clearly "the bigger problem" is that the system is corrupt.
- _jal 6y ago
  You don't get one without the other. The collection of all laws is such that even, consistent application would be untenable. That which cannot work, doesn't; instead, enforcement becomes selective. At that point, you're doomed; your system only works by being a system "...of people, not laws".
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I disagree. I think this type corruption is inevitable when you have legal system where the police are responsible for arbitrarily enforcing the law on an arbitrary subset of offenders. If you remove or universally enforce the law, the grey area for this type of corruption will go away.
- thereisnospork 6y ago
  Sure the system is corrupt, but selective enforcement is how corruption happens. Remove the mechanism and there stops being anything to be corrupt over. If everyone got pulled over and ticketed for speeding, every time, it would be impossible to e.g. pull over black drivers disproportionately, or give a warning in exchange for a PBA card.
  - cm2187 6y ago
    Or charged for rioting and looting
jacobolus 6y ago
> If the average person is good and still commits "3 felonies a day", then it is easy to believe that LEO is giving people a reprieve from systemic injustice, opposed to carrying out injustice. It’s the same people arguing for maximal support of the police (e.g. to beat the shit out of people for no reason, to confiscate innocent people’s cash and just keep it, to threaten people with made up charges and get them to sign false confessions, to fabricate evidence, to illegally stalk and harass anti-police-brutality activists, etc., and suffer no consequences) and arguing that friends of the police shouldn’t get punished for their infractions if they have the special card. (And also the same people arguing against both things.) More realistically, the little “courtesy cards” are a result of tribalism and corruption, and have nothing whatsoever to do with “systemic injustice”.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  I think you misunderstood my point and I don't see any contradiction. I am saying that the general public is not very offended by "courtesy cards" because they think the law is bad to begin with. If I don't think speeding and jaywalking should be a crime, I certainly don't care about people using cards to get off the hook for these crimes. I see this as a separate issue from police brutality, confiscation, ect.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    The people promoting these courtesy cards have absolutely no problem with speeding and jaywalking being crimes, and in fact are proponents of police discretion to e.g. constantly pull black people over and give them tickets for made up infractions just for the fun of it. It isn’t the “friends and family” of the police who want to end stop-and-frisk, decriminalize minor drug offenses, end cash bail, stop funding police departments from speed traps, .... You have diametrically misunderstood the point of the “3 felonies a day” book/argument, and you are shoehorning it in here to confidently promote your pet theory, without evidence.
    - s1artibartfast 6y ago
      >The people promoting these courtesy cards have absolutely no problem with speeding and jaywalking being crimes, and in fact are proponents of police discretion I agree on both counts. They are proponents of police discretion to let them off for crimes they dont want to be charged for, and have no problem with it. >to e.g. constantly pull black people over and give them tickets for made up infractions just for the fun of it. It isn’t the “friends and family” of the police who want to end stop-and-frisk, decriminalize minor drug offenses, end cash bail, stop funding police departments from speed traps, ... I disagree and dont know where you are getting this from. The characters in the article clearly wanted to get off the hook themselves, but that doesnt mean they want to see minorities targeted and abused. I want to get off the hook when stopped for speeding, but that doesnt mean I want police to be shooting and terrorizing minorities. >You have diametrically misunderstood the point of the “3 felonies a day” book/argument, and you are shoehorning it in here to confidently promote your pet theory, without evidence. Again, I disagree. The point of the book is that everyone is a criminal and LEO can currently use their discretion to go after anyone they choose to. MY POINT, is that by making 100% of citizens criminals, we have eroded public support for the enforcement of the law. Those who get get caught for everyday crimes are considered unlucky, and those who get off the hook are celebrated. We should enforce the laws we have uniformly, and get rid of the ones we don't want. This is far superior to unwanted laws on the books and rarely enforcing them hoping we wont be affected. Infrequently enforced laws are terrible for a number of reasons, but a big one is that those without power and connections are the ones who are most likely to be affected.
scarface74 6y ago
I think the bigger problem is that the general population does not want the law enforced They want the law enforced against people who don’t look like them. See the “War on Drugs” vs. “Drug Abuse is a Disease” when it hit “rural America”.

throwaway894345 6y ago

I think this is mostly right, but I don't think there are many arguing that police are universally good or perfect as much as (1) they have a hard job and (2) we should be more focused on violent offenders than police corruption. I'm certainly not advocating for these arguments, but I believe it's important to accurately understand that which you fight against.

ultrarunner 6y ago
I think you're right, but the excuses probably vary by location. In my area (which has very low petty traffic law enforcement), people do argue that cops are all good, usually with appeals to "the rule of law". I often wonder if this is seen as identical to "the rule of law enforcement". Mentioning the compliance rate with the speed limit (or gun control, for that matter) just makes them angry and the discussion ends. Mentioning nonviolent crimes like cannabis possession is usually met with a claim that drugs require violence, followed by the same anger as they shut down. There's a lot of discordant opinions held about police, at least near me. I suspect a lot of the counterproductive emotional reactions are a result of the fact that so much force is involved, but I'm not sure how to mitigate that.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I don't doubt your experiences at all, but my suspicion is that people are articulating their positions poorly, and their anger and defensiveness is explained by a frustration at their own inability to adequately articulate and defend their position. Usually when I disarmingly unpack the "rule of law" issue with people, their argument is more akin to "if we crack down on police, then it will empower criminals" which is a different disagreement than whether all cops are good or all cops are bad. Their argument is perhaps more aptly described as "we have to choose between mostly good cops and mostly bad criminals and we'd rather take the former". They would rather police rough up a few protesters if it means dissuading rioters from burning the neighborhood down. Of course, I firmly believe we can have our cake and eat it too--after all, better policing seems to exist in Europe, but it takes some faith and imagination, especially when I'm honest with myself about the ways in which we differ from Europe (wealth inequality, diversity, corruption, 2A rights, etc). I'm a pretty educated, articulate person who has thought a lot about these issues. I can certainly appreciate how the every-man would see things differently. I think that means it's incumbent upon us to communicate a vision of things working properly that addresses our unique challenges, and I certainly don't blame people for failing to be persuaded by the riots, protests, and generally demeaning rhetoric.