7 ms·

The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in

by xd 6y ago

The majority of people do not care because the police can legally blow your door of its hinges, kick the shit out of you, drag you into a van, and stuff you in a cell all before you get to the due process part of the justice system. No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. The warrant will only be granted after presenting substantive evidence that the person they are wishing to arrest has committed serious crime i.e. possession / distribution of indecent images of children, drugs, money laundering etc which required rapid entry to secure evidence. They don't get to enter your property for minor offences or on a whim.

hluska 6y ago
Sadly, while this answer is theoretically correct (and should be correct), reality is a lot muddier.
yeahnotreally 6y ago
> No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beati...
- xd 6y ago
  Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Do we demonise doctors because of the likes of Harold Shipman?
  - yeahnotreally 6y ago
    >Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Irrelevant. It's evidence that refutes your earlier claim that police can not legally "kick the shit out of you". They can. Dismissing them as "bad actors" doesn't change that fact.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - tonyarkles 6y ago
      I'd take it a step further after having read the article associated with that horrifying picture. Two of the officers were found not guilty. The third had charges dropped. This isn't just "bad actors", this is bad actors with the backing of the court system.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    No, we require extensive training, and re-training, of doctors. On top of that, they need malpractice insurance, which balloons for the individual if they're royal fuckups. They aren't demonized, they're held accountable. Demonization is a consequence of bad behavior combined with radical unaccountability.
gknoy 6y ago
the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you" I realize that we don't feel such behavior is legal, but recent history has shown that when police misbehave at this level (cf. Breonna Taylor), there are no meaningful consequences.
- freshhawk 6y ago
  So many engineers live and breathe P.O.S.I.W.I.D. (purpose of a system is what it does) in all technical areas and then are violently opposed to that kind of thinking when it comes to politics or sociology. I'm honestly baffled by it. I get that people can be ignorant of how police act in the real world because they have no experience with it and watch cop shows on TV, but once you learn what the actual behaviour is ...
  - salawat 6y ago
    My God, I'd not heard that one before. Like I'm fully aware of the philosophy, but not of the acronym as a name for it. Thank you. Filing that for later use.
- jbay808 6y ago
  > Breonna Taylor Given the discussion topic, maybe you should cite an incident that the RCMP was involved in, or at least one that occurred in Canada? I could cite police violence in Hong Kong, but I think that would be off-topic too.
chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> they can use reasonable force “Reasonable force” for values of “reasonable” that are defined by a group of people that doesn’t include me, no thanks.
- xd 6y ago
  "[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) In England it's got what I think is clearer definition: "Force is reasonable if a reasonable person would think it necessary to use force and would have used the same level of force as the defendant." As far as I'm aware these definitions apply to police officers.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    For police officers its defined by the policy of their department because they have training, less-lethal weapons, and are (at times) obligated to initiate force on subjects. The reasonable person in this case is a law enforcement officer who has the requisite training and experience.
  - isochronous 6y ago
    Not in the USA, they don't. Not as long as the cops in question don't know for a FACT that their behavior violates established law - even if it DOES violate established law, they aren't held accountable unless a previous court case established precedent under almost the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. As you might expect, finding a previous case in which the exact same circumstances applied is not an easy thing to do. Read up on qualified immunity: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what...
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Not in the USA, they don't. Not as long as the cops in question don't know for a FACT that their behavior violates established law - even if it DOES violate established law, they aren't held accountable unless a previous court case established precedent under almost the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. This only applies to civil liability; criminal prosecution of unreasonable use of force is not affected by QI, though there are other problems with that.
bdamm 6y ago
US Marshals straight up executed an American citizen in Portland (to wit, Michael Forest Reinoehl) on order of the President. Trump himself all but admitted it, in classic Trump style. I'd say that ranks as "kick the shit out of you" and, since there was no consequence for the police or the one who ordered the hit, it sure appears to be "legal".

by xd 6y ago

hluska 6y ago

Sadly, while this answer is theoretically correct (and should be correct), reality is a lot muddier.

yeahnotreally 6y ago

> No, the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you", they can use reasonable force if you decide to ignore or refuse instructions when they have a warrant which has been obtained via the courts. Ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beating.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kelly-Thomas-Police-Beati...

xd 6y ago
Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Do we demonise doctors because of the likes of Harold Shipman?
- yeahnotreally 6y ago
  >Yeap, there are bad actors in the police just like in all other walks of life. Irrelevant. It's evidence that refutes your earlier claim that police can not legally "kick the shit out of you". They can. Dismissing them as "bad actors" doesn't change that fact.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - tonyarkles 6y ago
    I'd take it a step further after having read the article associated with that horrifying picture. Two of the officers were found not guilty. The third had charges dropped. This isn't just "bad actors", this is bad actors with the backing of the court system.
- klyrs 6y ago
  No, we require extensive training, and re-training, of doctors. On top of that, they need malpractice insurance, which balloons for the individual if they're royal fuckups. They aren't demonized, they're held accountable. Demonization is a consequence of bad behavior combined with radical unaccountability.

gknoy 6y ago

the police can not legally "kick the shit out of you" I realize that we don't feel such behavior is legal, but recent history has shown that when police misbehave at this level (cf. Breonna Taylor), there are no meaningful consequences.

freshhawk 6y ago
So many engineers live and breathe P.O.S.I.W.I.D. (purpose of a system is what it does) in all technical areas and then are violently opposed to that kind of thinking when it comes to politics or sociology. I'm honestly baffled by it. I get that people can be ignorant of how police act in the real world because they have no experience with it and watch cop shows on TV, but once you learn what the actual behaviour is ...
- salawat 6y ago
  My God, I'd not heard that one before. Like I'm fully aware of the philosophy, but not of the acronym as a name for it. Thank you. Filing that for later use.
jbay808 6y ago
> Breonna Taylor Given the discussion topic, maybe you should cite an incident that the RCMP was involved in, or at least one that occurred in Canada? I could cite police violence in Hong Kong, but I think that would be off-topic too.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> they can use reasonable force “Reasonable force” for values of “reasonable” that are defined by a group of people that doesn’t include me, no thanks.

xd 6y ago
"[a] person is privileged to use such force as reasonably appears necessary to defend him or herself against an apparent threat of unlawful and immediate violence from another."[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States) In England it's got what I think is clearer definition: "Force is reasonable if a reasonable person would think it necessary to use force and would have used the same level of force as the defendant." As far as I'm aware these definitions apply to police officers.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  For police officers its defined by the policy of their department because they have training, less-lethal weapons, and are (at times) obligated to initiate force on subjects. The reasonable person in this case is a law enforcement officer who has the requisite training and experience.
- isochronous 6y ago
  Not in the USA, they don't. Not as long as the cops in question don't know for a FACT that their behavior violates established law - even if it DOES violate established law, they aren't held accountable unless a previous court case established precedent under almost the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. As you might expect, finding a previous case in which the exact same circumstances applied is not an easy thing to do. Read up on qualified immunity: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what...
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Not in the USA, they don't. Not as long as the cops in question don't know for a FACT that their behavior violates established law - even if it DOES violate established law, they aren't held accountable unless a previous court case established precedent under almost the EXACT SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. This only applies to civil liability; criminal prosecution of unreasonable use of force is not affected by QI, though there are other problems with that.

bdamm 6y ago

US Marshals straight up executed an American citizen in Portland (to wit, Michael Forest Reinoehl) on order of the President. Trump himself all but admitted it, in classic Trump style. I'd say that ranks as "kick the shit out of you" and, since there was no consequence for the police or the one who ordered the hit, it sure appears to be "legal".