4 ms·
As I said in another comment, you sound like you feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule. Almost all police in this country are not beating protestors
by kepler1 4y ago
As I said in another comment, you sound like you feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule. Almost all police in this country are not beating protestors or murdering people. I don't want to have a system where someone's extreme (though yes, bad case) sets the way we handle everything.
Is your approach to solve for the 0.001% problem and care nothing about the rest of the 99.999% situations where the rule you put in place will have to be lived with by everyone else?
- fzeroracer 4y agoHere's a thought experiment for you: I want you to watch the video of the Daniel Shaver shooting in Arizona. Then I want you to consider the outcome of the extreme police violence cases vs the extreme cases of bystander escalation. The only thing that stops the police from getting away with violence is the fact that people are recording them. And even then, the police can execute an innocent and unarmed individual and get acquitted by court.
- kepler1 4y agoNo one's talking about stopping people's right to record. And if standing 8 feet makes a difference then we've got other problems. I'm talking about reasonable restrictions to stop people from getting up in the police's face in everyday situations that dominate the daily work of policing, so that bystanders with less than honorable intentions don't provoke and escalate a situation. By whatever principle you're operating under, you would assert that police have no right to put up police tape and cordon off a crime scene either?