4 ms·

Except cities and agencies are choosing not to implement things like this. And they even go as far as keeping this information secret from the public.

by rOOb85 5y ago

easterncalculus 5y ago
The government not taking the 'right' option is not an argument for the creation of this website. Having the authorities run it instead of some random people (trolls, extremists, foreign intelligence, who knows) is not the same.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  You're clutching a lot pearls here, but has there been any evidence for any of this every happening? There's mountains of evidence of how bad cops are protected by the union, the government policy, and even legally (hello qualified immunity, and repeated court deference). Given the official reticence to hold officers to even the lowest standards of professionalism, what is your alternative? Throw up our collective hands?
  - easterncalculus 5y ago
    > You're clutching a lot pearls here, but has there been any evidence for any of this every happening? That idiom doesn't make sense to me in this context, there's no cultural issue or whatnot. It's about seeing how unverified claims can hurt people, which you don't need a crystal ball or peer reviewed study to tell you. It's also about the burden of proof - why do I need to point to tons of instances of these kinds of sites ruining innocent people's lives, but we should all expect what's posted here to be true without 'evidence'? > There's mountains of evidence of how bad cops are protected by the union, the government policy, and even legally (hello qualified immunity, and repeated court deference). "The police" are not some monolithic entity, with one single union or one single government, at least in the United States which this site is obviously directed at. Different unions and departments conduct themselves differently, and a lot of them don't have these problems. > Given the official reticence to hold officers to even the lowest standards of professionalism, what is your alternative? Throw up our collective hands? This is another fallacy - people that see the obvious problems with unverified claims on the internet are not required to give you solutions to whatever problem the latest example website is claiming to help solve. That being said, I can choose to answer that question as the separate topic it is. My answer is stronger hiring practices and when the rubber hits the road, federal enforcement. There are police departments that don't have these problems. Americans have civil rights and federal law enforcement is supposed to protect them, even and especially from state governments when those are violated. More money needs to be spent, and for a lot of departments they just need to wipe the force.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      You say that different agencies have different policies, but do they really? I would say this is a distinction without a difference. The problems seen are endemic across police forces nationwide. If there truly was a difference and a will to reform from the agencies themselves, wouldn’t the best practices be spread and the problems eradicated? Obviously this hasn’t happened. As for more money for police, isn’t that just rewarding bad behavior? Police are already some the largest expenditures for cities, and that’s even before you factor in all the payments for lawsuits for police misconduct. Police departments are unique in that you will find people arguing that more money needs to be spent on failing departments, whereas other government agencies, for instance schools, have their budgets cut for poor performance. It is pearl clutching because you’re arguing that potential harm is somehow greater than the actual harm that is occurring every day. Not just occurring, but documented, publicized, and then pointed unpunished. Just earlier this year, the 5th Circuit Court said it was reasonable for a police officer to recklessly immolate a man. You might say, it was unexpected that a cop would know that tasing a man that has doused himself in gasoline, would ignite it. But that doesn’t hold, because not only are the cops trained not use tasers around flammable liquids, BUT ANOTHER OFFICER ON SCENE said, “If we tase him, he’s going to light on fire.” But, oh won’t someone think of the police?! Seriously. Think about the real harm, because the cops protect themselves. They act with complete impunity. And as for worrying of a cop gets dozed, let me tell you a secret. That information is already public records. There’s nothing special here than anyone else, except that you and I can’t kill someone and then say the magic words “I thought he had a gun”, and then get applauded as a hero. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/02/19/court-grants-qualified-immunity-to-cops-who-set-a-man-on-fire-by-tasing-him/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/02/19/court-gr...

Except cities and agencies are choosing not to implement things like this. And they even go as far as keeping this information secret from the public.

by rOOb85 5y ago

Except cities and agencies are choosing not to implement things like this. And they even go as far as keeping this information secret from the public.

easterncalculus 5y ago

The government not taking the 'right' option is not an argument for the creation of this website. Having the authorities run it instead of some random people (trolls, extremists, foreign intelligence, who knows) is not the same.

jonathankoren 5y ago
You're clutching a lot pearls here, but has there been any evidence for any of this every happening? There's mountains of evidence of how bad cops are protected by the union, the government policy, and even legally (hello qualified immunity, and repeated court deference). Given the official reticence to hold officers to even the lowest standards of professionalism, what is your alternative? Throw up our collective hands?
- easterncalculus 5y ago
  > You're clutching a lot pearls here, but has there been any evidence for any of this every happening? That idiom doesn't make sense to me in this context, there's no cultural issue or whatnot. It's about seeing how unverified claims can hurt people, which you don't need a crystal ball or peer reviewed study to tell you. It's also about the burden of proof - why do I need to point to tons of instances of these kinds of sites ruining innocent people's lives, but we should all expect what's posted here to be true without 'evidence'? > There's mountains of evidence of how bad cops are protected by the union, the government policy, and even legally (hello qualified immunity, and repeated court deference). "The police" are not some monolithic entity, with one single union or one single government, at least in the United States which this site is obviously directed at. Different unions and departments conduct themselves differently, and a lot of them don't have these problems. > Given the official reticence to hold officers to even the lowest standards of professionalism, what is your alternative? Throw up our collective hands? This is another fallacy - people that see the obvious problems with unverified claims on the internet are not required to give you solutions to whatever problem the latest example website is claiming to help solve. That being said, I can choose to answer that question as the separate topic it is. My answer is stronger hiring practices and when the rubber hits the road, federal enforcement. There are police departments that don't have these problems. Americans have civil rights and federal law enforcement is supposed to protect them, even and especially from state governments when those are violated. More money needs to be spent, and for a lot of departments they just need to wipe the force.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    You say that different agencies have different policies, but do they really? I would say this is a distinction without a difference. The problems seen are endemic across police forces nationwide. If there truly was a difference and a will to reform from the agencies themselves, wouldn’t the best practices be spread and the problems eradicated? Obviously this hasn’t happened. As for more money for police, isn’t that just rewarding bad behavior? Police are already some the largest expenditures for cities, and that’s even before you factor in all the payments for lawsuits for police misconduct. Police departments are unique in that you will find people arguing that more money needs to be spent on failing departments, whereas other government agencies, for instance schools, have their budgets cut for poor performance. It is pearl clutching because you’re arguing that potential harm is somehow greater than the actual harm that is occurring every day. Not just occurring, but documented, publicized, and then pointed unpunished. Just earlier this year, the 5th Circuit Court said it was reasonable for a police officer to recklessly immolate a man. You might say, it was unexpected that a cop would know that tasing a man that has doused himself in gasoline, would ignite it. But that doesn’t hold, because not only are the cops trained not use tasers around flammable liquids, BUT ANOTHER OFFICER ON SCENE said, “If we tase him, he’s going to light on fire.” But, oh won’t someone think of the police?! Seriously. Think about the real harm, because the cops protect themselves. They act with complete impunity. And as for worrying of a cop gets dozed, let me tell you a secret. That information is already public records. There’s nothing special here than anyone else, except that you and I can’t kill someone and then say the magic words “I thought he had a gun”, and then get applauded as a hero. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/02/19/court-grants-qualified-immunity-to-cops-who-set-a-man-on-fire-by-tasing-him/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2021/02/19/court-gr...