6 ms·

I don't want the following to come off as judgemental or to imply that I have anything but the utmost empathy for everyone involved in this case. I think it's

• rtkwe 5y ago
  This is a weird fatalism about being unable to ever effectuate change that is really annoying in US politics. Without information about what's happening we'll never have a chance to change things, the whole culture of police violence loves hiding in the dark which is why news articles, body cams, and public videoing officers are met with such push back from police and their protectors.
  • internet_user 5y ago
    It's the eternal "who watches the watchers" problem. Some people propose having a very local, municipal for small towns, or even smaller for large towns, mercenary force with license to use lethal force that answers to direct democracy of the area they are assigned to and nobody else. Just like police, only their contract is reviewed every year, for everyone in the force.
    • krapp 5y ago
      >It's the eternal "who watches the watchers" problem. Odd. Plenty of other countries manage watching their watchers just fine... >Some people propose having a very local, municipal for small towns, or even smaller for large towns, mercenary force with license to use lethal force that answers to direct democracy of the area they are assigned to and nobody else. ... and they don't even need local murder squads answering only to populist rage to do it.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      • internet_user 5y ago
        I described elected sheriffs, but, if you feel that police "local murder squads", I don't know what to tell you. The core issue is they are paid your tax dollars, but you have very little input or control on what and how they do, and municipalities in general rely on the fact that moving away is high friction to retain citizens. Unfortunately you cannot easily fire them, if they underperform.
        • krapp 5y ago
          I don't know where you live but "mercenary force with license to use lethal force that answers to direct democracy of the area" doesn't reasonably describe the role of sheriff anywhere I've been.
    • CalChris 5y ago
      Cameras. The police were wearing cameras. https://www.clearcreekcourant.com/stories/body-cam-footage-shows-ispd-officers-deploying-stun-gun-on-deaf-man-in-2019-arrest,382633 https://www.clearcreekcourant.com/stories/body-cam-footage-s...?
      • internet_user 5y ago
        Cameras are at best a corrective measure, but not preventative. I'm hopeful better policing can be designed.
• loteck 5y ago
  You shouldn't be downvoted. There is so much apathy with regards to "bad news" like this. So many people feel this way: "if I can't meaningfully participate in improving this societal ill, I would prefer to ignore it." It is totally legit to ask how you can help beyond just feeling outraged. Answers to that question should exist and get talked about more.
  • Karunamon 5y ago
    IMO that is an entirely healthy and reasonable view to have. The word can't there is pretty important in making this distinction, but otherwise, everyone has 24 hours in the day just like everyone else, and filling that time with worry about things that are out of one's sphere of influence is harmful to mental health. For my case, I already vote and contribute in a way consistent with values that are anti-police-abuse. I otherwise do not live in this city or this state, and am not running for any higher political office, so for me personally the story amounts to outrage-bait noise.
• favorited 5y ago
  > What am I to do except get angry and ruminate and forget and repeat for the next story? You're absolutely supposed to get angry– these cops attacked an innocent man, tased him, and stole 4 months of his life. I'm not sure why you'd think you're supposed to forget, though.
  • hui-zheng 5y ago
    we shall definitely be angry with this policeman involved in this case, and the particular process/law to let this happen. However, here is the question to everyone reading this article. How many of you are projecting this angry to the all policemen, the whole police system, institution and law enforcement? How much of you say " what we could do to make police better?" how much of you say "police is evil and we will defund police" maybe think about why?
    • hobs 5y ago
      How many articles about police brutality with no punishment by their superiors do you need to start questioning that there might be systemic abuse? The reason why people say defund the police is because "we'll make it better!" is the same repeated statements that have gone literally nowhere, police abuse continues unchecked to the point where we have to write and publicly humiliate public officials to do their damn jobs.
      • sayonaraman 5y ago
        The only result of “defund the police” movement so far has been an explosion in violent crime. The murder rates skyrocketed in 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/22/upshot/murder-rise-2020.h...
        • Afforess 5y ago
          Literally no police departments have been "defunded" yet - even in places where they have been trying, the cuts have not taken effect. Any stats about a rise in crime is very misleading. The cause of the rise in crime is in no way related to systematic policy changes in funding because there have been no changes made.
• amznthrwaway 5y ago
  Well, this type of story could help you decide what sorts of politicians you support, and what policies you press them on. But I also fully understand that HN is a haven for white supremacists and other bigots who, like you, don’t give a shit and want to minimize this. And i also fully get that HN is moderated by Dan Gackle, a wildly dishonest asshole who happily ensures that HN remains a safe space for bigoted white assholes like yourself. In short, get fucked.
• lhorie 5y ago
  The sooner you realize that news are a form of entertainment rather than information, the quicker you can reprioritize your attention towards actually informational resources. The Socrates three sieves test is a good tool to evaluate whether a source is actually informational or merely entertainment trying to pass off as informational.
  • favorited 5y ago
    How is informing people of crimes committed by agents of the state against innocent civilians "entertainment?"
    • lhorie 5y ago
      You're clearly getting swayed by the emotive nature of this specific episode. Are you saying you were not aware of police brutality before? Can you say that knowing about this specific episode is as useful to you as reading documentation or learning how to garden? You'll have to forgive me if this sounds too utilitarian, but unless you're directly involved in this incident or policy making that affects future instances, then for all intents and purposes, there's no informational value in transmitting this story to you since you're not going to do anything about it anyways. In that sense, it is just vapid consumption, hence entertainment. To be clear, I'm not criticizing the news reporter. They're doing what they believe is a service to others, and I respect that. What I'm talking about is how you as an entity with limited attention span could alternatively think about news.
      • favorited 5y ago
        > unless you're directly involved in this incident or policy making that affects future instances, then for all intents and purposes, there's no informational value in transmitting this story to you since you're not going to do anything about it anyways. Frankly, that's nonsensical. There is a national conversation happening in the United States about policing, police brutality, and the lack of consequences when police abuse their authority. Engaged citizens should be informed enough to participate in that conversation. I've always known there was police brutality, but seeing and reading as much about police as I have over the last several years has certainly changed my views, which impacts which candidates I would support in an election, for example.
• dbt00 5y ago
  With the best possible motives, the goal of a story like this is to apply pressure on the police department to discipline officers who fail to exercise due care when dealing with the public. Here two officers tazed someone who couldn't hear them and held them in jail for 4 months because one of them fell and broke their leg while trying to jump the poor kid who, again, couldn't hear them. One of the officers was later fired for excessive force. Maybe if they'd handled this situation better that second incident wouldn't have happened and some 75 year old man wouldn't have have been unnecessarily assaulted by government forces. Maybe with enough public pressure, we create a climate where officers are less likely to assault some guy with his hands up yelling "no ears" instead of throwing him in jail for 4 months for maybe rolling a stop sign.
  • SkipperCat 5y ago
    Agreed. Until people understand how much power US police forces have and how poorly they regulate it, we need to keep seeing these articles. I hope, at some point, there will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and broad sweeping changes will occur. We do not need to get rid of policing, but we definitely need to change the way they treat the people they serve.
  • willcipriano 5y ago
    >He was also charged with possession of forged currency, the suit says, because police found movie-prop money in his wallet. Maybe rolling a stop sign and having counterfeit money. They buried that part pretty far into the article.
    • ianhawes 5y ago
      They discovered the counterfeit money after having assaulted the suspect. It has no bearing on the lawsuit.
    • Afforess 5y ago
      Anyone handling a decent amount of cash might be carrying counterfeit money. Everyone rolls through stop signs. You could arrest 5% of America on those two things any given day.
• mcavoybn 5y ago
  The takeaway is that the deaf man could be you. Cops and judges are flawed, and you should be wary of them. Also, you aren't being forced to read the news, if you don't find the information valuable then don't click on it.
• ruined 5y ago
  there is no call to action in this story, so maybe that is why you are at a loss "for what" if you feel troubled by the information presented here, i'm sure there are activists in your area that are seeking support and participation, or providing education and other resources, that could perhaps alleviate your feelings of disorientation and helplessness. i presume the article doesn't include any reference to any course of possible action because, for better or worse, they are making an effort to maintain journalistic impartiality.
• TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  I don’t understand your confusion. Police are constantly abusing innocent people. The purpose of telling stories about police abuse is to educate the public about the reality of the situation. Many of us were raised to believe the police are the good protectors of all, but as we learn about these stories we see that the police are not protecting everyone. Even when their intent is pure their methods are often unhinged and sloppy in a way that leads to senseless loss of life. And so, faced with this reality, many see that the system of policing in the USA must be changed. And those with the will take that action with the support of others who know these stories. Tho many people forget, and so many tabloids do exist to stir up outrage, I think the point of this NPR story is to educate as I have described.
  • jollybean 5y ago
    It's an easy to understand question if you have some distance from the subject and are not triggered by it. If you're a cop, and you ask someone to stop because something is up, and they just don't - if they react in any suspicious way it may cause you to want to stop them. It's going to be extremely rare to the point of 'never happening' that you come upon someone who is both 'deaf' and temporarily 'can't see due to light' so it's not going to cross your mind. The person admitted resisting arrest - he's deaf, not blind. When officers are physically upon you, how on earth do you not know it's them? His lawyer said he was 'blinded by the car lights' which is understandable when the cops are behind the lights, but clearly not otherwise. So there's a lot of room for the truth here, both parties could be innocent, both parties could be guilty. Even more nuanced: both parties could be just slightly guilty, i.e. the cops were taking a subtly more aggressive posture than they needed to, and the civilian did something he knew he shouldn't do, which was actively resisted arrest when he for sure knew they were cops. So cops needlessly put hands on him but still without intention to do anything, he resists which results in escalation, they fall to the ground, he breaks his legs and then you have a headline. The story feeds into the preconceived notions that people have, people are overwhelmingly more likely to fill in the blanks with their narrow views than they would be to consider the multitudes of nuances that lead to a situation. It's a rorschach test. That said: I would say the '4 month' bit is outrageous, we don't quite know what happened, maybe the toss-up between the police and civilian got quite serious but I can't fathom why he was not out on bail. Edit: I will also add, that the 'firing' of the cop is also meaningless in terms of determining culpability. The cops firing will be as ultra-political as when they close ranks and defend themselves, and is further away from actual justice than anything in a court of law. If the cop brought in a bad headline for the police force, he becomes a really easy target for the leadership as a potential scapegoat and political cover. "Oh look, we've reformed!". The details of the situation may be more complicated. It's really odd how these institutions work, they are so deeply politically entrenched and work on the basis of power, it's almost as if they are incapable of acting with thoughtful nuance. Advancement in these systems comes entirely from 'playing the game' and having a stellar record on paper and that's that.
• LeonB 5y ago
  “What am I to do” ? - Be considerate that people around you may have different abilities - Support movements that aim to make society less violent and police less aggressive I don’t see any mystery here.
• geofft 5y ago
  It seems like it does inform. That's not necessarily the same as it being actionable information, but I do think background information is useful. But I think there's another way to think about this story: consider the opposite of this article. Maybe "WATCH: Police officer saves deaf man seconds before train hits his car," or more abstractly "Fire department saves six kittens from blaze," or whatever other good news. What's the purpose of that news? I think most of us are happier to read it, but it is no more actionable - it is the same sort of background information. (Or, perhaps, it is in the same category as "entertainment" - things you consume for the sake of enjoying the consumption - but that seems like a poor place for the news to be, so let's hope that isn't it.) The purpose of informing you that the police is made of brave selfless officers and the fire department is made of brave kitten-rescuers is to influence you when you decide whether your city should increase sales taxes to pay its officers well and get the fire department longer ladders. To be abundantly clear, I'm not alleging a conspiracy here - I'm claiming this is a legitimate thing for them to do, and the thing society wants the press doing. In a well-functioning democratic society, the press reports on what's going on so that we can make informed votes. The information is actionable, though not immediately. So, conversely, the purpose of informing you that the police is made of trigger-happy dunces who get mad when a deaf person can't hear them, or that the fire department is being courted by some startup that tied fire extinguishers to drones and wants to charge them millions of dollars, or whatever, is also to inform you when your city wants to increase sales taxes for them. There are many other things you can do, besides voting, if you're asking "What am I to do." You can write to your elected officials. You can show up at local government meetings. You can campaign for or give money to political candidates that seem likely to be effective. You can volunteer with or give money to community organizations tackling specific problems (e.g., if you see a lot of stories about how the government is failing to provide social service X because of bureaucracy, I'm sure there's a local volunteer organization that would love your time or money). What happened when, for example, word got out that America was wasting its time in Vietnam? What was the purpose of them media showing Americans at home what was going on? The people who had been opposing the war as immoral or doomed were, of course, angry and cynical; the people who changed their mind couldn't individually do anything about either a war half the world away or the orders of the US military. But once enough people changed their minds, expressed in part (but by no means entirely) by who they voted for, the US started to withdraw.
• poulsbohemian 5y ago
  In the United States, if you've been victimized, you basically have two paths of recourse: 1) Have enough money, time, and connections to take legal action and hope that maybe you come to parity someday. 2) Draw enough publicity that the money, time, and connections come to you, in hopes that you can bring social change to prevent someone else from being victimized. When you turn away from stories like this, you are complicit in why these are the only two options we have in our system.
• whoisjuan 5y ago
  More Outrage == More Virality == More Impressions == More Money From Ads
• elliekelly 5y ago
  I think you raise an interesting point about the outrage machine the internet has turned into: it numbs us to the things that are outrageous. Like the way this person was treated by police. When we’re bombarded with hundreds of “outrageous” things every time we get online (Kanye said X! This new book says Y!) it all just becomes background noise.
• jorblumesea 5y ago
  This is a super confusing take. > I think it's interesting to consider these types of articles that get popular online. These types of articles were popular way before the internet > It seems perfect for creating outrage, but for what? Reporting on issues of injustice and inequality tends to elicit that reaction. But to imply that outrage is the end goal isn't entirely accurate. It's a fairly unbiased piece that's just reporting what happened, for the most part. > If the purpose of the news is to inform, what does this news inform me of? Informing you of abuse of power in local police departments. Information is power. Did you really read that article and get literally nothing useful out of it? > What am I to do except get angry and ruminate and forget and repeat for the next story? Next time you vote for your local sheriff or engage in the civic process, you should be more aware of these problems. The article has, in theory, informed you about something you may have not been aware of.
• aarpmcgee 5y ago
  My sense is that the spirit of your question is lost on 90% of those replying. I think you’re asking a smart question. I don’t have any answers, but I wanted to push back on the answers that insist on outrage.
• EastOfTruth 5y ago
  The main problem is that cops that act recklessly usually have no consequences except in some rare cases when the story becomes viral...
• chmsky00 5y ago
  Researching elastic structures led me to the energy industry which led me to government role in the history of energy, which led me to government propaganda research documents; it was all gifted to advertising and marketing programs in university after WW2. The goal is to instigate an emotional mood in the limbic system, and insert a semantic construct to associate with that mood. The science has been abstracted into career jargon and lost all connection to its roots. It’s not about factual communication of current events, but emotional information transmission. It’s to titillate the emotional system and inject banality. To keep people thinking about the angry shit. We’re doing what religion does; instigate anxiety with unverifiable “truth” as our culture is based upon that empty truth.
• e-clinton 5y ago
  The point is to raise awareness so citizens can pressure governments to do better. You’re lucky you get to read these things in the news. I lived through all sorts of harassment from police.
• lsiebert 5y ago
  Well, first off, when the courts are able to hold people individually accountable for their actions, they behave better. One of the reasons that police officers can't be held accountable is qualified immunity. If you don't know why it's problematic, basically it prevents people from being held accountable for their actions by dismissing cases unless they are identical to past cases... and since cases are dismissed before trial, there is regularly no case law to compare cases too. You can write your elected representatives at the federal level and encourage them to end qualified immunity, thus allowing people to sue individuals when their rights are violated. You can write your state level elected representatives and encourage them to provide a right of action under state law against law enforcement to end qualified immunity. You can contact your local (city, county) representatives and encourage them to rewrite contracts with law enforcement such that law enforcement members who are found to have acted innappropriately face financial penalties, can be fired, etc, and those who have done so in other jurisdictions are not eligible for hiring locally. You can, if you favor more bold choices, also explore ideas around which government programs are priorities, and giving more money to social support programs, homelessness prevention etc, so that people don't need to interact with law enforcement, and less to law enforcement.
• Guid_NewGuid 5y ago
  Social change takes a lot of time and a lot of funerals. By continuing to make people aware of abuses these stories provide a critical function to inform people about the problem. Given in this thread we have the usual sneering about movements seeking to "defund the police" and 'crazy dangerous BLM Marxist anarchists' it's clear there's a lot of people who are either acting in bad faith or will never change their views. But by continuing to highlight the terrible abuses by people the state grants a monopoly on violence to (just check the headline news in England) the media can build a new consensus and change minds and build a critical mass to support progressive improvements to the nature of policing. For someone who already supports reasonable and proportionate reforms to policing such news is often more infuriating and disempowering but essential to cut through to the rest. Taking the example of the torture and murder of a random woman by a serving police officer in England, plus the court judgement on the rapist Spycops scandal plus the rate of domestic abuse by serving English officers we will have a lot fewer people claiming the police in England is fine and doesn't have issues after this week. Perhaps then we can improve oversight of policing with broad political support and avoid any more victims.
• nyolfen 5y ago
  read the article -- nothing happened to either of these officers as a result of this attack. the police in the US are insulated from consequence, largely due to political influence. shaping popular narratives leads to popular support for political change. this is the fundamental power of media.
• mdp2021 5y ago
  > What am I to do except You are not to «[feel] and forget». First, you are to be aware that there are systemic failures (which could even save your life, same as a dispatch "rabid ferals invaded area"). Then, you are to demand that the systemic failures are fixed. Republic does not just mean "there are no kings above the rest", it means matters are everybody's business.