3 ms·

Police can't just grab people as they choose. Removing someone is achieved by arresting them. That's how the police work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest

Police can't just grab people as they choose. Removing someone is achieved by arresting them. That's how the police work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest To arrest someone, the behaviour they're engaging in has to be criminal (i.e. chargeable). Then the police can ask the prosecution service to charge them (the US equivalent of the DA I guess), which is the discretionary bit. This seems to be the thing you're taking issue with. So although you don't realize it, you're basically saying you want to give the police brand new powers to grab anyone they want. That's an incredibly dangerous and seriously poorly thought out suggestion.

nobody9999 4y ago
>So although you don't realize it, you're basically saying you want to give the police brand new powers to grab anyone they want. That's an incredibly dangerous and seriously poorly thought out suggestion. Nope. Not intentionally or otherwise. Police have always had the "move along citizen" (with no arrest/detention at all) power. In fact, I'd say they use it far too often, at least in the US. I'm not in the UK, and when I've visited I haven't interacted with the police, so that may not be true there. Is it? What's more, being asked/encouraged to leave if someone is being disruptive is pretty normal and certainly doesn't require detention and/or arrest. Or even police for that matter. Even more, (again, I'm not in the UK so not sure if this applies there) arrest records are public records and can negatively affect one's ability to get a job or housing due to the stigma around "criminals" even if they aren't actually charged/convicted in relation to such an arrest. So no. I'm not advocating (wittingly or otherwise) for any new powers for the police. Rather, I'm agreeing with your premise that folks shouldn't disrupt solemn occasions like funerals, but I'm disagreeing with your premise[0] that such activity should be criminalised. And I also take issue with your assertion (perhaps I misunderstood, but that's the impression I got. Please enlighten me if I've misunderstood) that the only options for police are either arrest or do nothing at all. That's absurd on its face. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32848029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32848029

nobody9999 4y ago

>So although you don't realize it, you're basically saying you want to give the police brand new powers to grab anyone they want. That's an incredibly dangerous and seriously poorly thought out suggestion. Nope. Not intentionally or otherwise. Police have always had the "move along citizen" (with no arrest/detention at all) power. In fact, I'd say they use it far too often, at least in the US. I'm not in the UK, and when I've visited I haven't interacted with the police, so that may not be true there. Is it? What's more, being asked/encouraged to leave if someone is being disruptive is pretty normal and certainly doesn't require detention and/or arrest. Or even police for that matter. Even more, (again, I'm not in the UK so not sure if this applies there) arrest records are public records and can negatively affect one's ability to get a job or housing due to the stigma around "criminals" even if they aren't actually charged/convicted in relation to such an arrest. So no. I'm not advocating (wittingly or otherwise) for any new powers for the police. Rather, I'm agreeing with your premise that folks shouldn't disrupt solemn occasions like funerals, but I'm disagreeing with your premise[0] that such activity should be criminalised. And I also take issue with your assertion (perhaps I misunderstood, but that's the impression I got. Please enlighten me if I've misunderstood) that the only options for police are either arrest or do nothing at all. That's absurd on its face. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32848029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32848029