3 ms·
The fact that something like this is even considered against adults is just plain absurd. Law enforcement shouldn't be so adversarial at every step. Do you da
by jopsen 2y ago
The fact that something like this is even considered against adults is just plain absurd.
Law enforcement shouldn't be so adversarial at every step.
Do you dare help the police, when you never know if they consider you friend or foe.
- rjbwork 2y ago>Do you dare help the police, when you never know if they consider you friend or foe. No, never. Give the minimum required information and try to exit the interaction as soon as possible. You are always considered foe, and likewise, should nearly always consider the police your foe. The only exception is when you're the victim of a violent crime and need their assistance to pursue justice, but even then you have to be judicial in your interactions.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoMost of the complexity arises from the simple fact that the job is unavoidably adversarial when it comes to criminals. Deception is an natural strategy with upside for catching criminals. It could be banned, but there would be a non-zero cost to enforcement. The public generally wants to have it's cake and eat it tool
- LordDragonfang 2y agoThe problem is that it is literally not the police's job to decide who is or is not a criminal (which, by the constitution, can only be determined by a fair trial, until which they must be presumed innocent), only to gather evidence and catch suspects, and it is supposed to be their job to serve and protect all citizens (which, despite their attitudes, include suspects).
- s1artibartfast 2y agoThere is a conflict of interest. Suspects presumed innocent are best served and protected by no investigation and no evidence collection. This is a contradiction with the stated purpose of the police, therefore it goes to the people and the law to decide where to strike the balance.