17 ms·

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-than-lethal weapons such as tasters and batons. And often more lethal weapons such as a shotgun or assault rifle in their car. But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? I'm not sure how someone wearing body armor and carrying multiple weapons that can incapacitate or kill someone can be intimidated by a smile.

bamfly 3y ago
> I'm not sure how someone wearing body armor and carrying multiple weapons that can incapacitate or kill someone can be intimidated by a smile. They're wannabe military tough-guys with laughably worse training and culture, much of which tells them they should be pee-pants scared all the time (seriously—folks very-successfully sell some wacko training courses to cops; or, just look at the disconnected-from-reality-and-common-sense mythology they've built up, within their ranks, around fentanyl). That's the best-case explanation for that behavior. Sometimes they're literal machismo-fueled gangsters (yes, literally, as in, "involved in organized crime") and will punch down all day long to make sure they're feared. [EDIT] Actually, school districts suffer from some similar problems, as far as being sold all kinds of ineffective and wrong-headed wacko programs and training, and too-frequently ending up corrupt little petty empires (OMG, the amount of money superintendents siphon off to pals...)—I think in both cases we may have opted for a level of devolution that's tipped at least a bit too far toward local autonomy, and could perhaps benefit from something like a professional management/officer corp that gets re-assigned every few years, like officers in the military, to prevent empire-building and make corruption and deviation into wacko-land much less likely. Though, I think that kind of thing's on exactly nobody's radar, so don't expect it to ever happen. [EDIT EDIT] I mean obviously the problem's more severe and grave with cops, it just occurred to me that a lot of the problems in both spheres might be for organizationally-similar reasons.
- softfalcon 3y ago
  Yeah, this is becoming more and more the case. I have friends who are associated with or in law enforcement and if you ever end up at a bar with them they will endlessly talk about the "threats to their safety" on the job. I often hear stories where they're checking out a house that has supposed drug use (or similar) and they play it up like they're a marine in a war zone, going to have a man-down shoot out. In reality, they knock on the door, a very high college student answers, they provide the warrant, search through a house of strung out people, and they do their thing. That being said, our area has a lot of rural patrols and we have had a few incidents where people fire back at the cops on their acreage and it turns into an incident. However, even when dealing with "crazy Billy with a shotgun", they're 2 people, who then call in backup, also have a shotgun, and are otherwise armed. The power dynamic still favours the cops even in that extreme situation. I feel like there are a lot of rare incidents that get repeated over and over within the police force that keep the cops on edge and further the belief of a need for more and more budget increases for more and more military-style equipment. For instance, our local city police force just bragged on twitter that they bought a modified troop carrier and a ramming tank for SWAT-like break and enter operations. I'm not sure I want my police owning a literal tank when they already have me outgunned with assault rifles, shot guns, sidearms, and sheer numbers. By the way, this is in Canada. I'm not even talking about the more extreme stuff going on South of the border.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Bullies and thieves seek the valor and respectability they think their position warrants
  - biomcgary 3y ago
    I have neighbor who was a police officer until last month. She was fired because she was trying to push back against an aggressive, corrupt culture in her small town police department. She and another officer had arrested a non-violent, mentally disturbed individual, who had been perfectly compliant in custody. (The guy shoplifted a beer occasionally to quiet the voices in his head.) Another officer walked in and immediately grabbed the arrestee (already in handcuffs) and threw him on the ground, fracturing his skull and causing seizures. Our neighbor pushed for an investigation repeatedly (which would have taken her off the job until complete, since she was the commanding officer on the scene), but it was denied. She was fired shortly after. She is filing a lawsuit to get her job back and the family of the police brutality victim is also suing. I hope they both win, but I do worry about our neighbor's life expectancy if she gets her job back. The tech industry has strong incentives to invade privacy, push inflammatory content, and for otherwise good people to look the other way. Nevertheless, I am opposed to broad brush denigration of employees in the sector, many of which do push back in quiet ways against dark patterns, even if not enough. I feel the same way about law enforcement. The biggest difference between tech and law enforcement is that police work involves stakes that are higher in the short-term and more visible, but tech is far more dangerous in the long-term through, e.g., inflammatory social media, persistent surveillance, etc.
BLKNSLVR 3y ago
Because some of the people attracted to the power of working as a police officer legitimately need all those weapons and all that body armour to project the power and confidence they just can't implicitly find within themselves. I'm sad for root cause, but society seems to be increasingly paying for symptoms that the powers that be refuse to admit are even present.
- chongli 3y ago
  It's a vicious cycle. The police develop a reputation for toxic culture. People who might otherwise be attracted to policework for the right sorts of reasons (sense of duty, care for the community, responsibility etc.) become alienated by the toxic culture and are driven away. The people who remain develop warrior / siege mentality and toxicity increases. People who are attracted to policework for the wrong reasons (resentment, desire for power over others, greed) fit in among the other toxic misfits. It's part of a wider pattern of institutional breakdown and the loss of trust in institutions.
b112 3y ago
And yet it wasn't a smirk, now was it? It was a smirk and other things. Right or wrong, call it what it is. Don't drop info off the event, and focus on one part of it. And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street? Note, I said "doing their job", not "doing it wrong". For damned sure there are bad cops. But by god, there are a load of good ones, and some of them spend all day, dealing with people at their absolute worst, taking crap you or I wouldn't be able to handle for 5 minutes.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street Please show precedent for anyone being prosecuted for rendering an “intimidating smirk” in any other context. Or filming someone working in public.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    They're being prosecuted for smirking at cops while destroying pro-cop signage, which can be read as assault. Ask yourself whether in today's age someone could get away with destroying an LGBT sign amidst a pro-LGBT protest, while staring down LGBT people, and get away with it. I don't agree with where the standards are, but most people would observe that this is the standard. Whatever anyone's personal rationalization for preferencing one group over another, in this type of enforcement, it is immaterial as far as the criminal code is concerned. There are no marginalized group allowances for assault.
    - jgwil2 3y ago
      If she tore it up and threw the pieces in their face then maybe it could be construed as assault. If she was tearing it up and smirking without physically threatening the cops then how could it possibly constitute assault?
      - mrangle 3y ago
mrangle 3y ago
Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. To think that police won't get away with using a standard that approaches that isn't realistic.
- 542354234235 3y ago
  >Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. Do you mean vandalizing and/or destroying other people's property or pulling a sign away from someone else and destroying it, or do you mean being charged with assault for destroying their own LGBT sign? Because those are night and day different things. I would love to see a source if it is the latter, since you can legally burn the American flag, but you can't burn someone else's American flag.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. Also, to clarify, it should be difficult or impossible to charge someone for assault simply for destroying property. But according to how I understand assault laws, and leaving room for jurisdictional interpretation, if you do it while doing something else that can be read as intimidation then you could be vulnerable to an assault charge. Whether or not the other person is actually intimidated won't ever be considered. Cop or civilian. The intention is what will be charged.
    - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
      > The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. This is a inaccurate comparison. She didn't destroy any else's property
chmod600 3y ago
You left out: “…Although some of these laws have been vetoed or deemed unconstitutional”
tppiotrowski 3y ago
> The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Is this true? I thought killing for self defense is legal.
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  its kind of a term of art and applies more to the state than the police specifically - although the police are obviously the primary tool of doling out legalized violence and have in many ways usurped the power to determine what qualifies as legal. > For the same reasons, "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is that human community that successfully claims for itself to be the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion. For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in defense of one's self or property, but this right derives from the state's authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
- harimau777 3y ago
  One difference is that regular citizens have to prove that they were acting in self defense while, in practice, police are almost always given the benefit of the doubt.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Ticketmaster’s monopoly on venue event ticketing doesn’t mean it’s illegal to sell tickets if you’re not Ticketmaster, and doesn’t require laws the specifically say Ticketmaster gains the monopoly
- LanceH 3y ago
  When using that, it's not talking about self defense. The government has a monopoly on the use of violence in the sense that if you owe them money or some other obligation, they may go through paperwork, collections, all the normal resources. At some point, though, they will send people with guns and physically collect you. Don't pay the IRS for long enough and the government will use violence against you, generally in the form of locking you up against your will.
- 3y ago
lordfrito 3y ago
> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) [1] It seems that more and more Americans feel intimidated by just about anything nowadays (microagressions, etc.). So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. I don't buy into class warfare, in my worldview police are just as fragile (no more, no less) as any other human. Holding a gun in your hand doesn't make you any less fragile, just more hazardous/dangerous. I'm sure there are plenty of people that regularly carry guns, people that (based on class/race/etc) would be considered extremely fragile. The gun doesn't change that distinction. Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country? Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much? If the answer is patriarchy or 'whiteness' (whatever that means) etc. then this is just more of the same toxic in group / out group stuff used to justify holding power over others. Is a hard working police officer allowed to be offended by songs such as "Fuck The Police"? Is that "hate speech"? Should the creators of that song be cancelled for being filled with hate directed at a particular "out group"? More and more I am bothered by the kinds of "distinctions" between people we're making in this country. You know, the kind based on race, class, education, wealth, etc. that just separates people into "this kind" and "that kind". This "this kind" gets special treatment, while "that kind" is afforded no protections, and is persecuted (don't get me started on the people who say "its OK they deserve it"). Laws like this are profoundly anti-American, going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years. "Fuck the police" indeed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  > Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others? These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession. It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".
jimbob45 3y ago
In fairness, Utah is arguably the most conservative state in the US right more by virtue of its hefty Mormon bloc.
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  Utah is definitely not the most conservative state. Wyoming 69.9% West Virginia 68.6% Oklahoma 65.4% North Dakota 65.1% Idaho 63.8% Arkansas 62.4% Kentucky 62.1% Alabama 62% South Dakota 61.8% Tennessee It's not in the top 10
cratermoon 3y ago
That's nothing. Just whisper "fentanyl" and see the cops scurry away like roaches when you turn on the kitchen light.
moretrashplz 3y ago
And yet people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that complain about police abusing their powers and vulnerable groups of people.
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you
  - dcow 3y ago
    You might be surprised how much a group of armed citizens can do against a police squad. I don't think “you’ll never protect yourself from the gov’t” is an accurate angle.
    - watwut 3y ago
      They can't do nothing and if they try, they will go to prison forever.
      - hellojesus 3y ago
        In the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.
        watwut 3y ago
        Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning. In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up. Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.
dcow 3y ago
I mean, they’re just emulating the zeitgeist. This is what happens when the prevailing worldview is inconsistent and hypocritical. We’ve normalized the idea that words and subtle actions can be micro-aggressive and thus are violent. That’s literally the logic these days and instead of fighting it most people happily jumped onboard entertaining idiotic rhetoric in the name of social justice. So I’m not surprised at all to see this stuff try to make it’s way into laws. Your responsibility as a citizen is to maintain a fair and just playing field. You don't get to cancel others for their word-violence and then turn around and complain when your peers try to put a stop yours. Time to grow up.
- Atreiden 3y ago
  Are you really trying to suggest that police brutality is caused by cancel culture? That the natural consequences of attempting to address problematic language include the rampant murder of minorities by members of law enforcement? > You don't get to cancel others for their word-violence and then turn around and complain when your peers try to put a stop yours. Time to grow up. Hoo boy. This shouldn't need to be said, but there is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between an individuals right to refuse to associate with "Stop the Steal" people, and LEOs being entitled to murder whoever they feel like without repercussion. Is this sarcasm? The mental gymnastics here are so insane I have to question your sincerity in posting this. > words and subtle actions can be micro-aggressive and thus are violent This is not what the term microaggression means. Microagressions do not imply violence.
  - throwmeouthn 3y ago
    Except that microaggression includes the word aggression which is defined as: > hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront. I don't think they were suggesting police brutality is caused by cancel culture - I think that was you reaching. I think they were suggesting that laws being passed to protect police from being made fun of, are the result of people being overly sensitive and allowing the words of others to hurt them personally. It appears that if anyone was doing mental gymnastics here, it was you.
  - 3y ago
CamperBob2 3y ago
The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. And it's impressive to see how quickly one gets shouted down on "progressive" forums when one objects to this inherently-illiberal state of affairs.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
Wait, arent policemen entitled to safe space to be protected from microaggressions with trigger warning?

bamfly 3y ago

> I'm not sure how someone wearing body armor and carrying multiple weapons that can incapacitate or kill someone can be intimidated by a smile. They're wannabe military tough-guys with laughably worse training and culture, much of which tells them they should be pee-pants scared all the time (seriously—folks very-successfully sell some wacko training courses to cops; or, just look at the disconnected-from-reality-and-common-sense mythology they've built up, within their ranks, around fentanyl). That's the best-case explanation for that behavior. Sometimes they're literal machismo-fueled gangsters (yes, literally, as in, "involved in organized crime") and will punch down all day long to make sure they're feared. [EDIT] Actually, school districts suffer from some similar problems, as far as being sold all kinds of ineffective and wrong-headed wacko programs and training, and too-frequently ending up corrupt little petty empires (OMG, the amount of money superintendents siphon off to pals...)—I think in both cases we may have opted for a level of devolution that's tipped at least a bit too far toward local autonomy, and could perhaps benefit from something like a professional management/officer corp that gets re-assigned every few years, like officers in the military, to prevent empire-building and make corruption and deviation into wacko-land much less likely. Though, I think that kind of thing's on exactly nobody's radar, so don't expect it to ever happen. [EDIT EDIT] I mean obviously the problem's more severe and grave with cops, it just occurred to me that a lot of the problems in both spheres might be for organizationally-similar reasons.

softfalcon 3y ago
Yeah, this is becoming more and more the case. I have friends who are associated with or in law enforcement and if you ever end up at a bar with them they will endlessly talk about the "threats to their safety" on the job. I often hear stories where they're checking out a house that has supposed drug use (or similar) and they play it up like they're a marine in a war zone, going to have a man-down shoot out. In reality, they knock on the door, a very high college student answers, they provide the warrant, search through a house of strung out people, and they do their thing. That being said, our area has a lot of rural patrols and we have had a few incidents where people fire back at the cops on their acreage and it turns into an incident. However, even when dealing with "crazy Billy with a shotgun", they're 2 people, who then call in backup, also have a shotgun, and are otherwise armed. The power dynamic still favours the cops even in that extreme situation. I feel like there are a lot of rare incidents that get repeated over and over within the police force that keep the cops on edge and further the belief of a need for more and more budget increases for more and more military-style equipment. For instance, our local city police force just bragged on twitter that they bought a modified troop carrier and a ramming tank for SWAT-like break and enter operations. I'm not sure I want my police owning a literal tank when they already have me outgunned with assault rifles, shot guns, sidearms, and sheer numbers. By the way, this is in Canada. I'm not even talking about the more extreme stuff going on South of the border.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Bullies and thieves seek the valor and respectability they think their position warrants
- biomcgary 3y ago
  I have neighbor who was a police officer until last month. She was fired because she was trying to push back against an aggressive, corrupt culture in her small town police department. She and another officer had arrested a non-violent, mentally disturbed individual, who had been perfectly compliant in custody. (The guy shoplifted a beer occasionally to quiet the voices in his head.) Another officer walked in and immediately grabbed the arrestee (already in handcuffs) and threw him on the ground, fracturing his skull and causing seizures. Our neighbor pushed for an investigation repeatedly (which would have taken her off the job until complete, since she was the commanding officer on the scene), but it was denied. She was fired shortly after. She is filing a lawsuit to get her job back and the family of the police brutality victim is also suing. I hope they both win, but I do worry about our neighbor's life expectancy if she gets her job back. The tech industry has strong incentives to invade privacy, push inflammatory content, and for otherwise good people to look the other way. Nevertheless, I am opposed to broad brush denigration of employees in the sector, many of which do push back in quiet ways against dark patterns, even if not enough. I feel the same way about law enforcement. The biggest difference between tech and law enforcement is that police work involves stakes that are higher in the short-term and more visible, but tech is far more dangerous in the long-term through, e.g., inflammatory social media, persistent surveillance, etc.

BLKNSLVR 3y ago

Because some of the people attracted to the power of working as a police officer legitimately need all those weapons and all that body armour to project the power and confidence they just can't implicitly find within themselves. I'm sad for root cause, but society seems to be increasingly paying for symptoms that the powers that be refuse to admit are even present.

chongli 3y ago
It's a vicious cycle. The police develop a reputation for toxic culture. People who might otherwise be attracted to policework for the right sorts of reasons (sense of duty, care for the community, responsibility etc.) become alienated by the toxic culture and are driven away. The people who remain develop warrior / siege mentality and toxicity increases. People who are attracted to policework for the wrong reasons (resentment, desire for power over others, greed) fit in among the other toxic misfits. It's part of a wider pattern of institutional breakdown and the loss of trust in institutions.

b112 3y ago

And yet it wasn't a smirk, now was it? It was a smirk and other things. Right or wrong, call it what it is. Don't drop info off the event, and focus on one part of it. And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street? Note, I said "doing their job", not "doing it wrong". For damned sure there are bad cops. But by god, there are a load of good ones, and some of them spend all day, dealing with people at their absolute worst, taking crap you or I wouldn't be able to handle for 5 minutes.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street Please show precedent for anyone being prosecuted for rendering an “intimidating smirk” in any other context. Or filming someone working in public.
- mrangle 3y ago
  They're being prosecuted for smirking at cops while destroying pro-cop signage, which can be read as assault. Ask yourself whether in today's age someone could get away with destroying an LGBT sign amidst a pro-LGBT protest, while staring down LGBT people, and get away with it. I don't agree with where the standards are, but most people would observe that this is the standard. Whatever anyone's personal rationalization for preferencing one group over another, in this type of enforcement, it is immaterial as far as the criminal code is concerned. There are no marginalized group allowances for assault.
  - jgwil2 3y ago
    If she tore it up and threw the pieces in their face then maybe it could be construed as assault. If she was tearing it up and smirking without physically threatening the cops then how could it possibly constitute assault?
    - mrangle 3y ago

mrangle 3y ago

Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. To think that police won't get away with using a standard that approaches that isn't realistic.

542354234235 3y ago
>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. Do you mean vandalizing and/or destroying other people's property or pulling a sign away from someone else and destroying it, or do you mean being charged with assault for destroying their own LGBT sign? Because those are night and day different things. I would love to see a source if it is the latter, since you can legally burn the American flag, but you can't burn someone else's American flag.
- mrangle 3y ago
  The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. Also, to clarify, it should be difficult or impossible to charge someone for assault simply for destroying property. But according to how I understand assault laws, and leaving room for jurisdictional interpretation, if you do it while doing something else that can be read as intimidation then you could be vulnerable to an assault charge. Whether or not the other person is actually intimidated won't ever be considered. Cop or civilian. The intention is what will be charged.
  - mitt_romney_12 3y ago
    > The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. This is a inaccurate comparison. She didn't destroy any else's property

chmod600 3y ago

You left out: “…Although some of these laws have been vetoed or deemed unconstitutional”

tppiotrowski 3y ago

> The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Is this true? I thought killing for self defense is legal.

enragedcacti 3y ago
its kind of a term of art and applies more to the state than the police specifically - although the police are obviously the primary tool of doling out legalized violence and have in many ways usurped the power to determine what qualifies as legal. > For the same reasons, "monopoly" does not mean that only the government may use physical force, but that the state is that human community that successfully claims for itself to be the only source of legitimacy for all physical coercion or adjudication of coercion. For example, the law might permit individuals to use force in defense of one's self or property, but this right derives from the state's authority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
harimau777 3y ago
One difference is that regular citizens have to prove that they were acting in self defense while, in practice, police are almost always given the benefit of the doubt.
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Ticketmaster’s monopoly on venue event ticketing doesn’t mean it’s illegal to sell tickets if you’re not Ticketmaster, and doesn’t require laws the specifically say Ticketmaster gains the monopoly
LanceH 3y ago
When using that, it's not talking about self defense. The government has a monopoly on the use of violence in the sense that if you owe them money or some other obligation, they may go through paperwork, collections, all the normal resources. At some point, though, they will send people with guns and physically collect you. Don't pay the IRS for long enough and the government will use violence against you, generally in the form of locking you up against your will.
3y ago

lordfrito 3y ago

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) [1] It seems that more and more Americans feel intimidated by just about anything nowadays (microagressions, etc.). So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. I don't buy into class warfare, in my worldview police are just as fragile (no more, no less) as any other human. Holding a gun in your hand doesn't make you any less fragile, just more hazardous/dangerous. I'm sure there are plenty of people that regularly carry guns, people that (based on class/race/etc) would be considered extremely fragile. The gun doesn't change that distinction. Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country? Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much? If the answer is patriarchy or 'whiteness' (whatever that means) etc. then this is just more of the same toxic in group / out group stuff used to justify holding power over others. Is a hard working police officer allowed to be offended by songs such as "Fuck The Police"? Is that "hate speech"? Should the creators of that song be cancelled for being filled with hate directed at a particular "out group"? More and more I am bothered by the kinds of "distinctions" between people we're making in this country. You know, the kind based on race, class, education, wealth, etc. that just separates people into "this kind" and "that kind". This "this kind" gets special treatment, while "that kind" is afforded no protections, and is persecuted (don't get me started on the people who say "its OK they deserve it"). Laws like this are profoundly anti-American, going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years. "Fuck the police" indeed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_colorblindness

mitt_romney_12 3y ago
> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others? These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession. It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".

jimbob45 3y ago

In fairness, Utah is arguably the most conservative state in the US right more by virtue of its hefty Mormon bloc.

yamazakiwi 3y ago
Utah is definitely not the most conservative state. Wyoming 69.9% West Virginia 68.6% Oklahoma 65.4% North Dakota 65.1% Idaho 63.8% Arkansas 62.4% Kentucky 62.1% Alabama 62% South Dakota 61.8% Tennessee It's not in the top 10

cratermoon 3y ago

That's nothing. Just whisper "fentanyl" and see the cops scurry away like roaches when you turn on the kitchen light.

moretrashplz 3y ago

And yet people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that complain about police abusing their powers and vulnerable groups of people.

mitt_romney_12 3y ago
A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you
- dcow 3y ago
  You might be surprised how much a group of armed citizens can do against a police squad. I don't think “you’ll never protect yourself from the gov’t” is an accurate angle.
  - watwut 3y ago
    They can't do nothing and if they try, they will go to prison forever.
    - hellojesus 3y ago
      In the short term, any resistance is a death sentence. However, the gov agents always have to think about whether the person they're encountering is willing to throw their life away. If enough citizens become willing to be dead, real change happens. Sacrifice is required for such events, but clearly having an armed population helps reduce the power asymmetry.
      - watwut 3y ago
        Gangs are that resistance and they are not winning. In slums, drug cartels found enough of people willing to throw the life away. And as much as they are able to deal drugs, there is no symmetry between them and state. The Dead bodies just pile up. Armed population does absolutely nothing except lynching here and there. And even those lynching happened with approval from state.

dcow 3y ago

I mean, they’re just emulating the zeitgeist. This is what happens when the prevailing worldview is inconsistent and hypocritical. We’ve normalized the idea that words and subtle actions can be micro-aggressive and thus are violent. That’s literally the logic these days and instead of fighting it most people happily jumped onboard entertaining idiotic rhetoric in the name of social justice. So I’m not surprised at all to see this stuff try to make it’s way into laws. Your responsibility as a citizen is to maintain a fair and just playing field. You don't get to cancel others for their word-violence and then turn around and complain when your peers try to put a stop yours. Time to grow up.

Atreiden 3y ago
Are you really trying to suggest that police brutality is caused by cancel culture? That the natural consequences of attempting to address problematic language include the rampant murder of minorities by members of law enforcement? > You don't get to cancel others for their word-violence and then turn around and complain when your peers try to put a stop yours. Time to grow up. Hoo boy. This shouldn't need to be said, but there is absolutely no equivalence whatsoever between an individuals right to refuse to associate with "Stop the Steal" people, and LEOs being entitled to murder whoever they feel like without repercussion. Is this sarcasm? The mental gymnastics here are so insane I have to question your sincerity in posting this. > words and subtle actions can be micro-aggressive and thus are violent This is not what the term microaggression means. Microagressions do not imply violence.
- throwmeouthn 3y ago
  Except that microaggression includes the word aggression which is defined as: > hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront. I don't think they were suggesting police brutality is caused by cancel culture - I think that was you reaching. I think they were suggesting that laws being passed to protect police from being made fun of, are the result of people being overly sensitive and allowing the words of others to hurt them personally. It appears that if anyone was doing mental gymnastics here, it was you.
- 3y ago

CamperBob2 3y ago

The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. And it's impressive to see how quickly one gets shouted down on "progressive" forums when one objects to this inherently-illiberal state of affairs.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

Wait, arent policemen entitled to safe space to be protected from microaggressions with trigger warning?