6 ms·

Care to elaborate on this? I am a US citizen, and I find it hard to understand the implication that US citizens are responsible for the violence and aggressive

by jmpz 6y ago

Care to elaborate on this? I am a US citizen, and I find it hard to understand the implication that US citizens are responsible for the violence and aggressive tactics of police.

dzhiurgis 6y ago
The fact that just about anyone can be heavily armed means police needs to be extra vigilant or else risk their life. Otherwise people feel so extreme and polarised. You've got Hawaii and Bay Area liberals vs rednecks. Both are very strong with their opinions.
- inter_netuser 6y ago
  is hawaii very liberal? more so than bay area?
  - thatfunkymunki 6y ago
    in my experience it's rather conservative there socially, but overall it's like 2/3 democrat voters there.
kolla 6y ago
A lot of you are armed.
- jmpz 6y ago
  This does not excuse or allow the frequent and extreme violence that is perpetrated by police on unarmed citizens, which is the reason they feel the need to document their experiences with officers. It was a violent encounter with police officers that led to the proposal that they wear body cameras (https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brutality-george-floyd/ https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brut...) Even with the use of them, the release of them is often blocked or their existence is denied. From the above article: " In Baltimore three years ago, one of the devices caught a police officer as he planted drugs at a crime scene; he was later convicted for fabricating evidence. After Rayshard Brooks was fatally shot by a cop in Atlanta on Friday, body cam footage of the incident was quickly released, and the officer was fired. "
  - auggierose 6y ago
    The problem is that when you don't know if a citizen is armed or not, you just default to thinking they are. Because that is the safer assumption for you to make as a police officer. If citizens are not allowed to carry guns, that default assumption changes. It is a whole different dynamic.
    - jlkuester7 6y ago
      > If citizens are not allowed to carry guns, that default assumption changes. I am not sure this is entirely correct. Generally speaking, law-abiding citizens are not the ones that police have to worry about anyway (regardless of if they are carrying guns). Citizens that are not law-abiding (criminals), on the other hand, are the people that police generally need to be concerned about. It does not seem like a great idea to assume these people are not armed simply because they "are not allowed to carry guns." Admittedly, the absolute saturation of American culture with guns is not making the cop's jobs any easier, but the answer to these problems is way more complicated than disarming law-abiding citizens.
      - auggierose 6y ago
        It's not way more complicated. Get rid of the guns, and you will get rid of a lot of problems. It is really that simple. But I would not know how to get rid of guns in the US now, because there are just too many guns around, and "non-law-abiding" citizens will still carry them. A citizen should not carry a gun. Doesn't matter if they are "law-abiding" or not.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - fitblipper 6y ago
        I find your distinction between law abiding citizens and criminals hilarious. There is no difference between the two and to pretend like there is a difference is how we get the same people chanting both "we need to punish criminals more severely!" and "It's shameful the US has so much of it's population in prison" edit: But also, how do you expect a COP to be able to differentiate between the 2 in the field? They are essentially the ones that gets to decide who is a criminal or not which brings us back to how the police are given the ability to abuse their power.
ajmadesc 6y ago
As an American living in Europpe, I can say that Americans glorify violence, greed, individualism, more than any other country in the world.
- tallanvor 6y ago
  For the most part this isn't true. The difference is that Americans are more willing to express themselves on these topics than people in some European countries. And I say this as an American who's been living in Europe for over 12 years now.
- jmpz 6y ago
  I guess? But that's a fairly huge generalization to portray a whole country, isn't it? And even it were true to such a degree that it influenced policing, that does't really address the concerns of disproportionate use of violence towards people of color, or repeated instances of corruption and illegal tactics.
  - sepin4 6y ago
    In my view, the US citizens are too polarized in almost any category to work their issues with one another. Most have very limited capacity for compromise and it's not always limited by internal rationalization. You are either left or right, cop or a citizen, black or caucasian, etc. God forbid you say the word "social" if you are a republican or you'll be labelled as a traitor to your party, that kind of polarization. There is no middle ground with where you stand. There was an interview on Ben Shapiro's channel on youtube where people on the street which identify as liberal where asked if they would consider compromising in order to get along with the right. They said, "Yes, we must be united." However when they were asked to choose on some policies to compromise, they disagreed to do so on every single one of them. Obviously this was targeted interview and I don't agree with half of the things that Shapiro is saying. However for citizens to live in peace with the rest there must be some kind of process of discussions and resolutions through compromise. And in your case those usually start with a discussion and end up with "f* you", "no f* you". My theory is that you have not had enough experience with negotiations and that is attributed to the limited foreign encounters that you had in your history. In Europe we had so many conflicts and wars that we had to negotiate all the time to keep the status quo which meant sometimes compromising with the opposition. The US way to handle things is usually to go straight to the active and aggressive approach. I've seen this in my business meetings and IT meetings with US clients. In itself this way of handling things is neither correct nor wrong, however it must be applied only when it is suitable to do so. And in my opinion this is usually all that you have in your deck of cards. I have some other theories as well on why your social approach is usually more aggressive.
fogihujy 6y ago
Not the GP, but my personal impression is that US culture glorifies violence and conflict, as conflict, rather than co-operation, is seen as a way to get ahead on an individual level. That spreads through all layers of society including law enforcement. It is obviously not something that can be blamed on any specific individual, and it's only based on what things looks like from the outside, but the impression is there regardless. The ridiculous amount of wars the US wages upon other countries also contribute to that image, but I suspect that's more related to the US fighting seemingly neo-colonial wars with European support than anything else. If European contribution had been on the same level, that factor would probably not be included.

by jmpz 6y ago

Care to elaborate on this? I am a US citizen, and I find it hard to understand the implication that US citizens are responsible for the violence and aggressive tactics of police.

dzhiurgis 6y ago

The fact that just about anyone can be heavily armed means police needs to be extra vigilant or else risk their life. Otherwise people feel so extreme and polarised. You've got Hawaii and Bay Area liberals vs rednecks. Both are very strong with their opinions.

inter_netuser 6y ago
is hawaii very liberal? more so than bay area?
- thatfunkymunki 6y ago
  in my experience it's rather conservative there socially, but overall it's like 2/3 democrat voters there.

kolla 6y ago

A lot of you are armed.

jmpz 6y ago
This does not excuse or allow the frequent and extreme violence that is perpetrated by police on unarmed citizens, which is the reason they feel the need to document their experiences with officers. It was a violent encounter with police officers that led to the proposal that they wear body cameras (https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brutality-george-floyd/ https://www.wired.com/story/body-cameras-stopped-police-brut...) Even with the use of them, the release of them is often blocked or their existence is denied. From the above article: " In Baltimore three years ago, one of the devices caught a police officer as he planted drugs at a crime scene; he was later convicted for fabricating evidence. After Rayshard Brooks was fatally shot by a cop in Atlanta on Friday, body cam footage of the incident was quickly released, and the officer was fired. "
- auggierose 6y ago
  The problem is that when you don't know if a citizen is armed or not, you just default to thinking they are. Because that is the safer assumption for you to make as a police officer. If citizens are not allowed to carry guns, that default assumption changes. It is a whole different dynamic.
  - jlkuester7 6y ago
    > If citizens are not allowed to carry guns, that default assumption changes. I am not sure this is entirely correct. Generally speaking, law-abiding citizens are not the ones that police have to worry about anyway (regardless of if they are carrying guns). Citizens that are not law-abiding (criminals), on the other hand, are the people that police generally need to be concerned about. It does not seem like a great idea to assume these people are not armed simply because they "are not allowed to carry guns." Admittedly, the absolute saturation of American culture with guns is not making the cop's jobs any easier, but the answer to these problems is way more complicated than disarming law-abiding citizens.
    - auggierose 6y ago
      It's not way more complicated. Get rid of the guns, and you will get rid of a lot of problems. It is really that simple. But I would not know how to get rid of guns in the US now, because there are just too many guns around, and "non-law-abiding" citizens will still carry them. A citizen should not carry a gun. Doesn't matter if they are "law-abiding" or not.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - fitblipper 6y ago
      I find your distinction between law abiding citizens and criminals hilarious. There is no difference between the two and to pretend like there is a difference is how we get the same people chanting both "we need to punish criminals more severely!" and "It's shameful the US has so much of it's population in prison" edit: But also, how do you expect a COP to be able to differentiate between the 2 in the field? They are essentially the ones that gets to decide who is a criminal or not which brings us back to how the police are given the ability to abuse their power.

ajmadesc 6y ago

As an American living in Europpe, I can say that Americans glorify violence, greed, individualism, more than any other country in the world.

tallanvor 6y ago
For the most part this isn't true. The difference is that Americans are more willing to express themselves on these topics than people in some European countries. And I say this as an American who's been living in Europe for over 12 years now.
jmpz 6y ago
I guess? But that's a fairly huge generalization to portray a whole country, isn't it? And even it were true to such a degree that it influenced policing, that does't really address the concerns of disproportionate use of violence towards people of color, or repeated instances of corruption and illegal tactics.
- sepin4 6y ago
  In my view, the US citizens are too polarized in almost any category to work their issues with one another. Most have very limited capacity for compromise and it's not always limited by internal rationalization. You are either left or right, cop or a citizen, black or caucasian, etc. God forbid you say the word "social" if you are a republican or you'll be labelled as a traitor to your party, that kind of polarization. There is no middle ground with where you stand. There was an interview on Ben Shapiro's channel on youtube where people on the street which identify as liberal where asked if they would consider compromising in order to get along with the right. They said, "Yes, we must be united." However when they were asked to choose on some policies to compromise, they disagreed to do so on every single one of them. Obviously this was targeted interview and I don't agree with half of the things that Shapiro is saying. However for citizens to live in peace with the rest there must be some kind of process of discussions and resolutions through compromise. And in your case those usually start with a discussion and end up with "f* you", "no f* you". My theory is that you have not had enough experience with negotiations and that is attributed to the limited foreign encounters that you had in your history. In Europe we had so many conflicts and wars that we had to negotiate all the time to keep the status quo which meant sometimes compromising with the opposition. The US way to handle things is usually to go straight to the active and aggressive approach. I've seen this in my business meetings and IT meetings with US clients. In itself this way of handling things is neither correct nor wrong, however it must be applied only when it is suitable to do so. And in my opinion this is usually all that you have in your deck of cards. I have some other theories as well on why your social approach is usually more aggressive.

fogihujy 6y ago

Not the GP, but my personal impression is that US culture glorifies violence and conflict, as conflict, rather than co-operation, is seen as a way to get ahead on an individual level. That spreads through all layers of society including law enforcement. It is obviously not something that can be blamed on any specific individual, and it's only based on what things looks like from the outside, but the impression is there regardless. The ridiculous amount of wars the US wages upon other countries also contribute to that image, but I suspect that's more related to the US fighting seemingly neo-colonial wars with European support than anything else. If European contribution had been on the same level, that factor would probably not be included.