4 ms·
Okay, I'll bite. I downvoted it because, even if true, it's irrelevant and promotes a toxic (and I use that term advisedly) narrative. Yes, when you enforce la
by SilasX 5y ago
Okay, I'll bite. I downvoted it because, even if true, it's irrelevant and promotes a toxic (and I use that term advisedly) narrative.
Yes, when you enforce laws, some people are a-holes and escalate to unlawful violence. Sometimes cops, sometimes civilians.
The appropriate reaction to make sure that isn't tolerated either, to improve police-community relations, to train police better, and to review whether we need to update laws to match consensus on expected human behavior.
The appropriate reaction is not in a hundred miles of "oh, well, gosh, do we really need to enforce laws anymore? Someone might get hurt!", and the forum is a worse place for tolerating that mentality.
Now, to be sure, there are many laws that fit the last category above and should probably be scaled back for being petty and kafkaesque. But, "don't wake up a million people around you for your own personal thrills" does not make the list.
- hellisothers 5y agoAgreed that the solution is not to _not_ enforce laws but the article is about enforcing the law without using Police “on the ground” to do so which helps alleviate the issue of possible escalation. The parent of my comment calls out that issue in response to their parent saying “let’s just get police involved” so in that regard this is a totally reasonable point to make in response to it and on topic for HN as it’s about automation of enforcement vs alternatives.