7 ms·

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 tha

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.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is reason enough for suspension in many European countries like Germany and Switzerland, for example. I know that this discussion is about US law, but I want to add this here to put in perspective how skewed law enforcement regulation is in the US. Much of what's perfectly acceptable in the US would be considered abuse of power in Europe. Such as pointing a gun at someone just because that someone could possibly be in the process of committing a felony.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  I don’t remember voting on laws related to police immunity or them carrying weapons or anything allowing them to act as if they have a permission to kill. Could you provide some examples of anything on the ballot that influenced police behavior?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    That is entirely dependent on your local voting system, not every place in the US has citizen initiatives on the ballot AFAIK. But it's a representative democracy anyway, so you vote for polices by who gets your vote. Sure, a lot of people just vote party line. But a lot of local elections are non-partisan.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      A lot of elections only have one candidate.
      - esarbe 5y ago
        Because the voters have accepted the representatives that chose them.
        perl4ever 5y ago
        The people do not choose to have one option. The candidates decide to run or not! Have you ever belonged to a club or nonprofit or something? Often they are begging people to run for office unopposed. If nobody wants to, you can't force them. People who do want to, eventually get tired or die and then it can be kind of a crisis to find a replacement. It's similar in small local political races. If you don't vote every year, you might not have noticed? Sometimes the incumbent goes unchallenged, and sometimes there is a challenger that is obviously not serious, but at the same time, the incumbent has a lot of murky dealings and connections that make it hard to have enthusiasm. I only vote if there is a choice, but the "choice" is usually the incumbent in a de facto one-party government.
marcosdumay 5y ago
Honestly, I live in a country with 4 times more homicides than the US after adjusting for population. Our laws state very clearly that the police does not get much extra immunity either (although, corruption gets in the way there), and our courts have no trouble at all to discard any piece of information the police acquires while they have a gun pointed at somebody's head. I really don't understand how the US justice system works the way it does.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The police in the US can point a gun at you and get you to comply, but if you think the courts are going to accept evidence collected while that gun is unholstered, then you definitely don't understand the justice system here. That's probably the single easiest win for a defense attorney in court.
  - coliveira 5y ago
    In many of these cases its your word against the cop's word. Guess whose side the justice system takes...
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Yes, a police officer is considered an officer of the court [1]. His exposure to consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen under oath. Given two conflicting statements that cannot be resolved with evidence, it isn't a surprise that the judge is going to defer to the cop. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
      - coliveira 5y ago
        > consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen This has never stoped them from lying, since they already know who will be believed.
      - giantg2 5y ago

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.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    Having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is reason enough for suspension in many European countries like Germany and Switzerland, for example. I know that this discussion is about US law, but I want to add this here to put in perspective how skewed law enforcement regulation is in the US. Much of what's perfectly acceptable in the US would be considered abuse of power in Europe. Such as pointing a gun at someone just because that someone could possibly be in the process of committing a felony.
andrei_says_ 5y ago
I don’t remember voting on laws related to police immunity or them carrying weapons or anything allowing them to act as if they have a permission to kill. Could you provide some examples of anything on the ballot that influenced police behavior?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  That is entirely dependent on your local voting system, not every place in the US has citizen initiatives on the ballot AFAIK. But it's a representative democracy anyway, so you vote for polices by who gets your vote. Sure, a lot of people just vote party line. But a lot of local elections are non-partisan.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    A lot of elections only have one candidate.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      Because the voters have accepted the representatives that chose them.
      - perl4ever 5y ago
        The people do not choose to have one option. The candidates decide to run or not! Have you ever belonged to a club or nonprofit or something? Often they are begging people to run for office unopposed. If nobody wants to, you can't force them. People who do want to, eventually get tired or die and then it can be kind of a crisis to find a replacement. It's similar in small local political races. If you don't vote every year, you might not have noticed? Sometimes the incumbent goes unchallenged, and sometimes there is a challenger that is obviously not serious, but at the same time, the incumbent has a lot of murky dealings and connections that make it hard to have enthusiasm. I only vote if there is a choice, but the "choice" is usually the incumbent in a de facto one-party government.

marcosdumay 5y ago

Honestly, I live in a country with 4 times more homicides than the US after adjusting for population. Our laws state very clearly that the police does not get much extra immunity either (although, corruption gets in the way there), and our courts have no trouble at all to discard any piece of information the police acquires while they have a gun pointed at somebody's head. I really don't understand how the US justice system works the way it does.

rootusrootus 5y ago
The police in the US can point a gun at you and get you to comply, but if you think the courts are going to accept evidence collected while that gun is unholstered, then you definitely don't understand the justice system here. That's probably the single easiest win for a defense attorney in court.
- coliveira 5y ago
  In many of these cases its your word against the cop's word. Guess whose side the justice system takes...
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Yes, a police officer is considered an officer of the court [1]. His exposure to consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen under oath. Given two conflicting statements that cannot be resolved with evidence, it isn't a surprise that the judge is going to defer to the cop. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/officer_of_the_court
    - coliveira 5y ago
      > consequences for lying is higher than the average citizen This has never stoped them from lying, since they already know who will be believed.
    - giantg2 5y ago