6 ms·

> Should you encounter, at some point in your life, a situation where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, you will do whatever the fuck they are telling

> Should you encounter, at some point in your life, a situation where a police officer is pointing a gun at you, you will do whatever the fuck they are telling you to do. That's the grim reality. I'm not sure if that's grim, though; don't most people want it to be exactly that way? We grant the police extraordinary power and some amount of immunity on purpose.

Ansil849 5y ago
This whole 250 comment thread is basically people discussing what they'd do or what you should do when finding yourself in a police encounter. My counterpoint is that none of that discussion actually applies. As for most people wanting it that way, I think it is because most people have not actually encountered it. They want it in the abstract, likely not so much when it happens to them. Kind of the classic...the people who want wars typically don't want their children in those wars.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I agree with you, everyone wants the cops to be be all powerful, because everyone assumes they will never be on the business end of that gun. It's basically the same advice Dr. Phil gave, and just about the only advice of his that ever resonated with me. Some people get it, some people don't, and when the cop is putting his boot on your face you aren't going to back talk. People fantasize online about all the things they will do in such a situation, but only people who have a good bit of experience with cops are going to be comfortable enough to talk smack to them. And frankly, for most of us, "don't ever talk to the police, never, never, never" will actually lead to worse outcomes on average. The trick is to recognize when you should follow that advice, and when you should not. Sometimes it's obvious.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    The danger is that the policeman in question may not be all that interested in the truth of the situation, only in catching a "bad guy". So even if you are innocent they may assume you are guilty and look for anything at all that would get a conviction. You might think that the courts would sort this out, since the cop obviously won't have any solid evidence, but it turns out that they don't have solid evidence in a great many cases and still manage to get convictions. The truth matters less than the system, and the system is designed to put people in jail.
- stackbutterflow 5y ago
  This is a very USian take. There are many countries in the world where people aren't scared to death when police come knock on their door. There are many countries where police officers are actually scared of using their weapon. In these countries it helps to know the law and how to deal with these situations.
  - foxfluff 5y ago
    Yep. Where I live it's very rare for cops to use their guns, and when it happens, you hear about it in the news. And if it wasn't just a warning shot to the air, you're going to hear about it again when they try to find out whether the gun use was justified.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      I'm guessing that where you live, guns have been effectively outlawed. Imagine arming your citizens to the teeth, what affect do you think that would have on your police?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I'm not frightened at all when the police come knock on my door. Why do you think that's normal in the US? > There are many countries where police officers are actually scared of using their weapon. I'm curious 1) the countries, and 2) why the officers are afraid.
    - jandrese 5y ago
      If every time you fire your weapon you are brought before a review board that treats firearm discharge as a serious matter and may lose your job if you acted in a panic or without reasonable justification then it's going to make you think twice about blasting that perp that maybe twitched his arm when you told him to hand over his driver's license and registration.
  - fencepost 5y ago
    "Impunity" In the US there are almost no significant repercussions for any actions taken by a police officer whether correct or not. See also "qualified immunity," where things can happen like officers literally stealing from a crime scene and the victim having no recourse because there's not a previous decided case with exactly that scenario within the same jurisdiction. https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-court-jessop-theft-kelsay-police-brutality/ https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-cou...
maxbond 5y ago
> [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way? The people who are not having police encounters with any regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get pulled over, who perhaps have property or other reasons to be invested in the status quo, often want things this way. The people on the wrong side of the gun feel differently. Giving cops lethal power does not create safety. It shifts around what the danger is and who is in danger.
- coliveira 5y ago
  American society created this situation because of its obtuse laws, which give anyone the power to carry guns. In this scenario, police is also forced to have guns and to assume that anyone can have a gun. It is a spiral to hell.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I agree 100%. As someone who owns guns, I don't want to have them taken away. But I don't want criminals to have them. Personally I would give up mine if everyone else did, including the police, but that isn't going to happen. And at this point there are so many guns in the US that I'm not sure what a realistic solution is. Even if we could get past the politics, mass confiscation would probably be ineffective (to make it work would require the use of significantly more force than US citizens will accept and far more police than we have, or near universal compliance).
    - craftinator 5y ago
      The hard thing about making guns illegal is that criminals will still have them...
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a person with X, and it's illegal, then they do know it's a criminal. This is an enormous advantage to enforcement, if that is the goal. Obviously you can, and many people do, make arguments based on crime statistics that outlawing guns works, but I prefer a logical approach.
Dudeman112 5y ago
No we don't. But then I live in a place where gun control is a thing and has 6 times less homicides than the USA after adjusting for population, so there's that. The popo are mostly unarmed and I'd rather things kept that way.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I guess I wasn't clear enough with my comment. I was talking about US citizens. We have exactly the police we vote for, every single election. Yes, there are loud people online who wish it wasn't so, but when people get into the privacy of the ballot box they reliably vote for "law & order".
  - tw600040 5y ago
    No one is complaining against "law & order". The whole thread is about police misuse of power. You really don't see the difference?
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you think this line of discussion was about, but having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is not a misuse of police power. If he beats you up after you are compliant, then we are talking about abuse. Forces you to confess, abuse. Any unnecessary roughness while you are in custody (e.g. The Ride), also abuse. But if he legitimately suspects you are committing a crime and asserts his control to stop it, then he is merely doing exactly what we (society) have paid him to do. It only becomes a problem if he abuses that power after control has already been gained.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        >having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is not a misuse of police power That's hardly something that everyone believes without qualification. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that I perceive a social context where it is normal to consider it a potential misuse of power depending on various factors. For instance, suppose you were stopped and had a gun pointed at you because you resembled someone involved in an armed robbery, but it appeared they had little more to go on than race and gender. You'd agree it's a fact that some people have perceived a situation like that, as victims, right? And if it was as they perceived, and a pattern, wouldn't it then be correct to consider it an institutional misuse of police power? One thing to consider is that pointing a gun at a person is not harmless. It carries a risk of inadvertently discharging the weapon. How many times have you heard the admonition to not point a gun without the intention to shoot? Accidents happen, and sometimes make the news, especially when the officer says they thought they had their taser. Pointing a gun is also a threat that suggests the victim might be shot with impunity. Statistically, there are probably people who have heart attacks or strokes due to the stress. Even if most officers are professional and trustworthy, there's no way to know in such a situation before the outcome.
banannaise 5y ago
If you define "most people" as the people with the most economic power, then yes, because the police are their enforcers. Then you have middle-class types who have been inundated with pro-police information for their entire lives, and who usually aren't on the business end of the gun. Most of them are on board too, obviously. But you're still missing some very large demographics there.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > But you're still missing some very large demographics there. Quite possibly. But the cold truth is that the only people who matter at all are the ones who show up to vote. And yes, "most people" is literally defined as everyone with enough economic power that they aren't forced into a life of crime. That's by far the majority.

Ansil849 5y ago

This whole 250 comment thread is basically people discussing what they'd do or what you should do when finding yourself in a police encounter. My counterpoint is that none of that discussion actually applies. As for most people wanting it that way, I think it is because most people have not actually encountered it. They want it in the abstract, likely not so much when it happens to them. Kind of the classic...the people who want wars typically don't want their children in those wars.

rootusrootus 5y ago
I agree with you, everyone wants the cops to be be all powerful, because everyone assumes they will never be on the business end of that gun. It's basically the same advice Dr. Phil gave, and just about the only advice of his that ever resonated with me. Some people get it, some people don't, and when the cop is putting his boot on your face you aren't going to back talk. People fantasize online about all the things they will do in such a situation, but only people who have a good bit of experience with cops are going to be comfortable enough to talk smack to them. And frankly, for most of us, "don't ever talk to the police, never, never, never" will actually lead to worse outcomes on average. The trick is to recognize when you should follow that advice, and when you should not. Sometimes it's obvious.
- jandrese 5y ago
  The danger is that the policeman in question may not be all that interested in the truth of the situation, only in catching a "bad guy". So even if you are innocent they may assume you are guilty and look for anything at all that would get a conviction. You might think that the courts would sort this out, since the cop obviously won't have any solid evidence, but it turns out that they don't have solid evidence in a great many cases and still manage to get convictions. The truth matters less than the system, and the system is designed to put people in jail.
stackbutterflow 5y ago
This is a very USian take. There are many countries in the world where people aren't scared to death when police come knock on their door. There are many countries where police officers are actually scared of using their weapon. In these countries it helps to know the law and how to deal with these situations.
- foxfluff 5y ago
  Yep. Where I live it's very rare for cops to use their guns, and when it happens, you hear about it in the news. And if it wasn't just a warning shot to the air, you're going to hear about it again when they try to find out whether the gun use was justified.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I'm guessing that where you live, guns have been effectively outlawed. Imagine arming your citizens to the teeth, what affect do you think that would have on your police?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I'm not frightened at all when the police come knock on my door. Why do you think that's normal in the US? > There are many countries where police officers are actually scared of using their weapon. I'm curious 1) the countries, and 2) why the officers are afraid.
  - jandrese 5y ago
    If every time you fire your weapon you are brought before a review board that treats firearm discharge as a serious matter and may lose your job if you acted in a panic or without reasonable justification then it's going to make you think twice about blasting that perp that maybe twitched his arm when you told him to hand over his driver's license and registration.
- fencepost 5y ago
  "Impunity" In the US there are almost no significant repercussions for any actions taken by a police officer whether correct or not. See also "qualified immunity," where things can happen like officers literally stealing from a crime scene and the victim having no recourse because there's not a previous decided case with exactly that scenario within the same jurisdiction. https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-court-jessop-theft-kelsay-police-brutality/ https://reason.com/2020/05/19/qualified-immunity-supreme-cou...

maxbond 5y ago

> [D]on't most people want it to be exactly that way? The people who are not having police encounters with any regularity, who aren't drawn on when they do get pulled over, who perhaps have property or other reasons to be invested in the status quo, often want things this way. The people on the wrong side of the gun feel differently. Giving cops lethal power does not create safety. It shifts around what the danger is and who is in danger.

coliveira 5y ago
American society created this situation because of its obtuse laws, which give anyone the power to carry guns. In this scenario, police is also forced to have guns and to assume that anyone can have a gun. It is a spiral to hell.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I agree 100%. As someone who owns guns, I don't want to have them taken away. But I don't want criminals to have them. Personally I would give up mine if everyone else did, including the police, but that isn't going to happen. And at this point there are so many guns in the US that I'm not sure what a realistic solution is. Even if we could get past the politics, mass confiscation would probably be ineffective (to make it work would require the use of significantly more force than US citizens will accept and far more police than we have, or near universal compliance).
  - craftinator 5y ago
    The hard thing about making guns illegal is that criminals will still have them...
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a person with X, and it's illegal, then they do know it's a criminal. This is an enormous advantage to enforcement, if that is the goal. Obviously you can, and many people do, make arguments based on crime statistics that outlawing guns works, but I prefer a logical approach.

Dudeman112 5y ago

No we don't. But then I live in a place where gun control is a thing and has 6 times less homicides than the USA after adjusting for population, so there's that. The popo are mostly unarmed and I'd rather things kept that way.

rootusrootus 5y ago
I guess I wasn't clear enough with my comment. I was talking about US citizens. We have exactly the police we vote for, every single election. Yes, there are loud people online who wish it wasn't so, but when people get into the privacy of the ballot box they reliably vote for "law & order".
- tw600040 5y ago
  No one is complaining against "law & order". The whole thread is about police misuse of power. You really don't see the difference?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you think this line of discussion was about, but having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is not a misuse of police power. If he beats you up after you are compliant, then we are talking about abuse. Forces you to confess, abuse. Any unnecessary roughness while you are in custody (e.g. The Ride), also abuse. But if he legitimately suspects you are committing a crime and asserts his control to stop it, then he is merely doing exactly what we (society) have paid him to do. It only becomes a problem if he abuses that power after control has already been gained.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      >having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is not a misuse of police power That's hardly something that everyone believes without qualification. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just that I perceive a social context where it is normal to consider it a potential misuse of power depending on various factors. For instance, suppose you were stopped and had a gun pointed at you because you resembled someone involved in an armed robbery, but it appeared they had little more to go on than race and gender. You'd agree it's a fact that some people have perceived a situation like that, as victims, right? And if it was as they perceived, and a pattern, wouldn't it then be correct to consider it an institutional misuse of police power? One thing to consider is that pointing a gun at a person is not harmless. It carries a risk of inadvertently discharging the weapon. How many times have you heard the admonition to not point a gun without the intention to shoot? Accidents happen, and sometimes make the news, especially when the officer says they thought they had their taser. Pointing a gun is also a threat that suggests the victim might be shot with impunity. Statistically, there are probably people who have heart attacks or strokes due to the stress. Even if most officers are professional and trustworthy, there's no way to know in such a situation before the outcome.

banannaise 5y ago

If you define "most people" as the people with the most economic power, then yes, because the police are their enforcers. Then you have middle-class types who have been inundated with pro-police information for their entire lives, and who usually aren't on the business end of the gun. Most of them are on board too, obviously. But you're still missing some very large demographics there.

rootusrootus 5y ago
> But you're still missing some very large demographics there. Quite possibly. But the cold truth is that the only people who matter at all are the ones who show up to vote. And yes, "most people" is literally defined as everyone with enough economic power that they aren't forced into a life of crime. That's by far the majority.