4 ms·

> ...effectively pulling a depolicing strike in response to criticism and legislative action trying to hold them responsible for their failings. That is a vast

> ...effectively pulling a depolicing strike in response to criticism and legislative action trying to hold them responsible for their failings. That is a vast overgeneralization. Check out how many extreme repeat offenders are immediately released without punishment: https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw?t=496 https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw?t=496 Seattle Police officers are literally reduced to _bribing criminals with candy_: https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw?t=865 https://youtu.be/bpAi70WWBlw?t=865

darksaints 6y ago
Seattle prosecutors may not be the best, but they also get nothing to work with. When the police decide to show up 8 hours after a crime occurs because they were dragging their feet in protest, or they don't have video evidence because their body cams were turned off, is it any surprise that there is not enough evidence to charge a criminal? Collecting evidence is the primary responsibility of the police, and prosecutors declining to prosecute a criminal for lack of evidence is a failing of the police, not the prosecutor. Unfortunately, given the abundance of evidence against criminal cops, they still don't prosecute them, so maybe the culpability is shared to some degree. https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-officers-used-excessive-force-at-protests-citys-opa-finds https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-officers-used-excess...
- ErikVandeWater 6y ago
  How do you know that police were collecting insufficient evidence before they started reducing policing of some crimes as a response to non-prosecution?
geofft 6y ago
That's because the voters, the people who should actually have the right to say how they want their government to run, have either voted for legislators who write laws that do not punish repeat offenders, or have voted for prosecutors who use their discretion, or have voted for judges who use their discretion. That is the right of the voters. The police (and certainly not the police unions!) do not have any power in a republican society to override that. It is certainly true that the way that Seattle police (and SF police, and NYC police, and NJ police, and...) want to maintain public order is different from the way that the voters want to maintain public order. But that is the very problem at hand - as the comment above says: 'current police culture basically says "Let me do my job however I want, without consequences, or I just won't do my job"'. Police overpolicing because they don't want to do their jobs as they're told is not very different from police underpolicing because they don't want to do their jobs as they're told.
- ErikVandeWater 6y ago
  Your analysis is hypocritical. People voted for politicians who voted for judges who ruled that police do not have to enforce the law.
  - geofft 6y ago
    I don't follow how that's hypocritical? (Am I preaching something I'm not practicing?) If the people want to vote for such politicians who want to vote for such judges who make such rulings, that's the people's right, is it not?

darksaints 6y ago

Seattle prosecutors may not be the best, but they also get nothing to work with. When the police decide to show up 8 hours after a crime occurs because they were dragging their feet in protest, or they don't have video evidence because their body cams were turned off, is it any surprise that there is not enough evidence to charge a criminal? Collecting evidence is the primary responsibility of the police, and prosecutors declining to prosecute a criminal for lack of evidence is a failing of the police, not the prosecutor. Unfortunately, given the abundance of evidence against criminal cops, they still don't prosecute them, so maybe the culpability is shared to some degree. https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-officers-used-excessive-force-at-protests-citys-opa-finds https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-officers-used-excess...

ErikVandeWater 6y ago
How do you know that police were collecting insufficient evidence before they started reducing policing of some crimes as a response to non-prosecution?

geofft 6y ago

That's because the voters, the people who should actually have the right to say how they want their government to run, have either voted for legislators who write laws that do not punish repeat offenders, or have voted for prosecutors who use their discretion, or have voted for judges who use their discretion. That is the right of the voters. The police (and certainly not the police unions!) do not have any power in a republican society to override that. It is certainly true that the way that Seattle police (and SF police, and NYC police, and NJ police, and...) want to maintain public order is different from the way that the voters want to maintain public order. But that is the very problem at hand - as the comment above says: 'current police culture basically says "Let me do my job however I want, without consequences, or I just won't do my job"'. Police overpolicing because they don't want to do their jobs as they're told is not very different from police underpolicing because they don't want to do their jobs as they're told.

ErikVandeWater 6y ago
Your analysis is hypocritical. People voted for politicians who voted for judges who ruled that police do not have to enforce the law.
- geofft 6y ago
  I don't follow how that's hypocritical? (Am I preaching something I'm not practicing?) If the people want to vote for such politicians who want to vote for such judges who make such rulings, that's the people's right, is it not?