6 ms·

It should be expected to have a police force that enforces the laws while not allowing police to mete out non judicial punishment. It’s possible for police to

It should be expected to have a police force that enforces the laws while not allowing police to mete out non judicial punishment. It’s possible for police to do their job without needing to beat whomever they want, whenever they want, without fear of prosecution.

mjfl 4y ago
then do it. Will you and other citizens get in uniform?
- syzarian 4y ago
  In case you aren’t aware, people can only hold a couple of jobs and one time and it’s ok for them to critique policies and actions of people in jobs they don’t have or ever intend to have. I can criticize a politician’s performance even though I don’t ever intend to become one. There is nothing illogical or hypocritical about this.
  - mjfl 4y ago
    in a democracy, if you point the finger at something and come to a bad conclusion, and then demand a ridiculous, unworkable solution, it is my duty as a fellow citizen to inform you and other voters that you are extremely wrong! That's what I'm trying to do. There's actually no super policeman hiding out there that can do what you say, and guarantee that across a population of over 300 million people there will never be violent interactions between the police and the citizenry. It is insane to suggest that.
    - lukebitts 4y ago
      No one sugested any policies at all. Maybe my fellow citizen could attend some reading comprehension classes before criticizing other citizens?
    - syzarian 4y ago
      Clearly you are incapable of a reasoned, nuanced discussion on this topic. You should try reading what has been written dispassionately. No is suggesting that there should never be a violent interaction between police and suspects. Clearly the discussion at had deals with police doing things like torturing suspects (read about Chicago police and death penalty cases there), and beating apprehended and subdued suspects. You are taking what is written and applying an interpretation that clearly is not intended or made. You act as if those wanting reform seek out the most extreme, nonsensical standards. You are unreasonable in your responses. I hope for you that you may one day learn and understand logic and nuance.
- tedivm 4y ago
  The Supreme Court agreed that police departments can go out of their way to only hire stupid people, and refuse to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st... This isn't just limited to intelligence. Police departments will not hire people who will do the job properly, and they'll force out the people who maintain high ethics. That's why people say there's a systemic issue with policing in this country.
  - gordian-mind 4y ago
    That is plain wrong. From your article the rationale for the police department was the following: > New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training. This is visibly not about "refusing to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well", but > a rational way to reduce job turnover Furthermore, since they interviewed only people who score higher than 20, where 21 is said to be equivalent to an IQ of 104, then those aren't stupid people. Finally, I will say that the conspiracy theory that police departments are pro-crime and try do their best to do their job the wrong way seems out of touch with reality.
    - syzarian 4y ago
      A great many police are not anti-crime when it comes to one of their own. For instance, police engage in domestic violence at a higher rate than the general population and are rarely arrested for it. Police violence, and we are talking about excessive violence, is well documented and so is the fact that they rarely go to jail for it. We are talking about police committing crimes and not violence committed lawfully while doing their job.
      - softjobs 4y ago
        Qualified Immunity needs to go.
gordian-mind 4y ago
> It should be expected to have a police force that enforces the laws while not allowing police to mete out non judicial punishment. This is, actually, completely impossible. A very simple example: an active shooter situation requires an immediate non judicial punishment. Therefore, the laws need explicit carve-outs for cops.
- syzarian 4y ago
  I apologize. Replace non judicial with illegal. As I wrote non judicial I was thinking of situations like beating a suspect already in custody.
  - gordian-mind 4y ago
    Good, I agree. Then you may also agree that your original statement > When one of their own is treated by the law like anyone else would be they retaliate by refusing to work was incorrect: if you were going to be arrested for killing an active shooter, then you would not do it. And it would be wrong to charaterize this as a retaliation, as it is a rational decision.
    - syzarian 4y ago
      You are good at missing the point. Clearly what is being talked about are things like beating suspects after they are in custody. We are not talking about justified use of force that police are legally allowed to do. If I was filed beating a handcuffed person I’d be arrested and prosecuted. The same does not usually apply to police. Please read what is written in the context it is written in.
      - gordian-mind 4y ago
        > Clearly what is being talked about are things like beating suspects after they are in custody. Pure invention, if you want to restrain your context then use precise language not a large variety of hyperboles like "It’s possible for police to do their job without needing to beat whomever they want, whenever they want." In the end, I will sum up this discussion from my POV: you view cops broadly as criminals waiting to get caught (they are domestic abusers after all!) and if I were one I would never want to police your neighborhood. I suspect this all comes from you living a sheltered life, and because your view of police and, especially, of criminals is informed by TV shows. And yes, "gotcha!", those aren't the same, no matter how many screenwriters enjoy subverting expectations. It's quite clear to me that the application of your ideas has given this headline, so I'm comfortable ending this discussion on this note: I hope that your anti-cop views are eliminated ASAP through the voting booth.

mjfl 4y ago

then do it. Will you and other citizens get in uniform?

syzarian 4y ago
In case you aren’t aware, people can only hold a couple of jobs and one time and it’s ok for them to critique policies and actions of people in jobs they don’t have or ever intend to have. I can criticize a politician’s performance even though I don’t ever intend to become one. There is nothing illogical or hypocritical about this.
- mjfl 4y ago
  in a democracy, if you point the finger at something and come to a bad conclusion, and then demand a ridiculous, unworkable solution, it is my duty as a fellow citizen to inform you and other voters that you are extremely wrong! That's what I'm trying to do. There's actually no super policeman hiding out there that can do what you say, and guarantee that across a population of over 300 million people there will never be violent interactions between the police and the citizenry. It is insane to suggest that.
  - lukebitts 4y ago
    No one sugested any policies at all. Maybe my fellow citizen could attend some reading comprehension classes before criticizing other citizens?
  - syzarian 4y ago
    Clearly you are incapable of a reasoned, nuanced discussion on this topic. You should try reading what has been written dispassionately. No is suggesting that there should never be a violent interaction between police and suspects. Clearly the discussion at had deals with police doing things like torturing suspects (read about Chicago police and death penalty cases there), and beating apprehended and subdued suspects. You are taking what is written and applying an interpretation that clearly is not intended or made. You act as if those wanting reform seek out the most extreme, nonsensical standards. You are unreasonable in your responses. I hope for you that you may one day learn and understand logic and nuance.
tedivm 4y ago
The Supreme Court agreed that police departments can go out of their way to only hire stupid people, and refuse to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st... This isn't just limited to intelligence. Police departments will not hire people who will do the job properly, and they'll force out the people who maintain high ethics. That's why people say there's a systemic issue with policing in this country.
- gordian-mind 4y ago
  That is plain wrong. From your article the rationale for the police department was the following: > New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training. This is visibly not about "refusing to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well", but > a rational way to reduce job turnover Furthermore, since they interviewed only people who score higher than 20, where 21 is said to be equivalent to an IQ of 104, then those aren't stupid people. Finally, I will say that the conspiracy theory that police departments are pro-crime and try do their best to do their job the wrong way seems out of touch with reality.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    A great many police are not anti-crime when it comes to one of their own. For instance, police engage in domestic violence at a higher rate than the general population and are rarely arrested for it. Police violence, and we are talking about excessive violence, is well documented and so is the fact that they rarely go to jail for it. We are talking about police committing crimes and not violence committed lawfully while doing their job.
    - softjobs 4y ago
      Qualified Immunity needs to go.

gordian-mind 4y ago

> It should be expected to have a police force that enforces the laws while not allowing police to mete out non judicial punishment. This is, actually, completely impossible. A very simple example: an active shooter situation requires an immediate non judicial punishment. Therefore, the laws need explicit carve-outs for cops.

syzarian 4y ago
I apologize. Replace non judicial with illegal. As I wrote non judicial I was thinking of situations like beating a suspect already in custody.
- gordian-mind 4y ago
  Good, I agree. Then you may also agree that your original statement > When one of their own is treated by the law like anyone else would be they retaliate by refusing to work was incorrect: if you were going to be arrested for killing an active shooter, then you would not do it. And it would be wrong to charaterize this as a retaliation, as it is a rational decision.
  - syzarian 4y ago
    You are good at missing the point. Clearly what is being talked about are things like beating suspects after they are in custody. We are not talking about justified use of force that police are legally allowed to do. If I was filed beating a handcuffed person I’d be arrested and prosecuted. The same does not usually apply to police. Please read what is written in the context it is written in.
    - gordian-mind 4y ago
      > Clearly what is being talked about are things like beating suspects after they are in custody. Pure invention, if you want to restrain your context then use precise language not a large variety of hyperboles like "It’s possible for police to do their job without needing to beat whomever they want, whenever they want." In the end, I will sum up this discussion from my POV: you view cops broadly as criminals waiting to get caught (they are domestic abusers after all!) and if I were one I would never want to police your neighborhood. I suspect this all comes from you living a sheltered life, and because your view of police and, especially, of criminals is informed by TV shows. And yes, "gotcha!", those aren't the same, no matter how many screenwriters enjoy subverting expectations. It's quite clear to me that the application of your ideas has given this headline, so I'm comfortable ending this discussion on this note: I hope that your anti-cop views are eliminated ASAP through the voting booth.