4 ms·

> The expert, former cop turned criminal justice professor Michael Alcazar, said Giovansanti should face “serious discipline.” But that’s not happening — an NYP

by nkrisc 6mo ago

> The expert, former cop turned criminal justice professor Michael Alcazar, said Giovansanti should face “serious discipline.” But that’s not happening — an NYPD spokesperson shrugged off the suggestion of punishment because Giovansanti’s tickets are “not related to his job or his duties in the department.” This angers me. Police officers are granted special privileges that ordinary citizens are not, and should be held to higher standards of conduct both on the job and off. In a just world, police officers would be exemplar citizens while wearing the uniform and while not. If they are not, how can we trust them to wield special privileges and authority over us?

ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.
- napoleond 6mo ago
  Each of those examples varies widely, and I don't think most people would treat each of them the same way. In general when the stakes are higher and the ambiguity of outcome is less clear, secondary signals become more important. Concretely: I don't give a shit if my housecleaner doesn't make their own bed as long as they make mine; the outcome I need is easy to verify and the stakes are fairly low so the secondary signal doesn't matter very much. Conversely, I care a lot if the therapist I'm relying on to help me manage my depression is visibly unable to manage their own; the outcome I need has a slow feedback loop and the stakes are high so I'm much more likely to rely on secondary signals like "is this person able to manage their own mood successfully?"
  - ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
    In your version of the therapist example, you don't trust them to do their job because they are failing to do their job. This is fine by me. My issue is with punishing people at their job over actions taken outside of their job, as in the example under discussion.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- nkrisc 6mo ago
  If I don't trust my doctor, I can ignore them and find a new doctor. If I don't trust my therapist, I can ignore them and find a new therapist. If I don't trust my housekeeper, I can fire them and hire a new housekeeper. If I don't trust a police officer, it doesn't matter. If they detain me and order me to step out of my vehicle, I have to comply under threat of the law and violence. I don't get to only listen to police officers whom I trust. That is why they must be held to a higher standard, because they wield elevated authority not granted to ordinary citizens. A police officer who has demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the law and safety can not be trusted as a police officer to uphold the law.
  - ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
    Are you saying you don't trust the people I mentioned for the reasons I mentioned? That a doctor who has demostrated a reckless disregard for his health outside of the law etc. etc.? Like, I get why trust is more important in this context, but I don't think it's at all normal to assume someone can't do their job because of decisions they make in their personal life.
    - ceejayoz 6mo ago
      Their point was pretty clear: you can’t opt out of a cop you don’t trust. You can opt out of seeing the unhealthy doctor.
      - ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
        It was, and I was pretty clear that I understood that. It dodges my point, though, and I've asked that they acknowledge it: should you distrust unhealthy doctors, not can you? Is unhealthiness in one's personal life disqualifying for the ability to provide stellar health advice in one's professional life? Should cops be held to the standard of being exemplary citizens who don't even speed? Have you ever sped? Do you know anyone who has never sped?
        ceejayoz 6mo ago
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- solomonb 6mo ago
  Huh? Your examples are all people failing at something that merely resembles their job. For the analogy to work, Giovansanti would need to be failing at something in his personal life that resembles traffic enforcement. Instead he's doing the exact thing his job exists to prevent.
- TulliusCicero 6mo ago
  > I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops. Because those other examples don't involve breaking the law. At the risk of pointing out the obvious: society holds breaking the law to be more serious than being fat or not making your bed. Now, speeding is very much a lesser form of breaking the law...but then again, very few people have literally hundreds of speeding tickets.
- redsocksfan45 6mo ago
  [dead]
- ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism
giantg2 6mo ago
What that spokesperson is saying isn't the whole truth. Departments can discipline or terminate people who dont meet their character clause, including being a scofflaw. They only apply it in whatever way they feel benefits them.
- nkrisc 6mo ago
  That’s my point, essentially, that they chose not to fire such a BS reason that doesn’t even suffice.
tootie 6mo ago
This kind of thing is egregious, but they get away with stuff like this all the time. I live a few blocks from an NYPD precinct house and they park all their personal vehicles on the sidewalk all the time every day. It's less dangerous than speeding, but it's a quality of life issue as well as simple fairness. They are in charge of ticketing parking violations but explicitly ignore their own violations.

by nkrisc 6mo ago

ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago

The same way we can trust an overweight doctor, a depressed therapist, a housecleaner who doesn't make their bed, or me to verify code I push to corporate repos even while I vibecode apps at home for fun without paying attention. I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops.

napoleond 6mo ago
Each of those examples varies widely, and I don't think most people would treat each of them the same way. In general when the stakes are higher and the ambiguity of outcome is less clear, secondary signals become more important. Concretely: I don't give a shit if my housecleaner doesn't make their own bed as long as they make mine; the outcome I need is easy to verify and the stakes are fairly low so the secondary signal doesn't matter very much. Conversely, I care a lot if the therapist I'm relying on to help me manage my depression is visibly unable to manage their own; the outcome I need has a slow feedback loop and the stakes are high so I'm much more likely to rely on secondary signals like "is this person able to manage their own mood successfully?"
- ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
  In your version of the therapist example, you don't trust them to do their job because they are failing to do their job. This is fine by me. My issue is with punishing people at their job over actions taken outside of their job, as in the example under discussion.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
nkrisc 6mo ago
If I don't trust my doctor, I can ignore them and find a new doctor. If I don't trust my therapist, I can ignore them and find a new therapist. If I don't trust my housekeeper, I can fire them and hire a new housekeeper. If I don't trust a police officer, it doesn't matter. If they detain me and order me to step out of my vehicle, I have to comply under threat of the law and violence. I don't get to only listen to police officers whom I trust. That is why they must be held to a higher standard, because they wield elevated authority not granted to ordinary citizens. A police officer who has demonstrated such a reckless disregard for the law and safety can not be trusted as a police officer to uphold the law.
- ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
  Are you saying you don't trust the people I mentioned for the reasons I mentioned? That a doctor who has demostrated a reckless disregard for his health outside of the law etc. etc.? Like, I get why trust is more important in this context, but I don't think it's at all normal to assume someone can't do their job because of decisions they make in their personal life.
  - ceejayoz 6mo ago
    Their point was pretty clear: you can’t opt out of a cop you don’t trust. You can opt out of seeing the unhealthy doctor.
    - ToValueFunfetti 6mo ago
      It was, and I was pretty clear that I understood that. It dodges my point, though, and I've asked that they acknowledge it: should you distrust unhealthy doctors, not can you? Is unhealthiness in one's personal life disqualifying for the ability to provide stellar health advice in one's professional life? Should cops be held to the standard of being exemplary citizens who don't even speed? Have you ever sped? Do you know anyone who has never sped?
      - ceejayoz 6mo ago
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
solomonb 6mo ago
Huh? Your examples are all people failing at something that merely resembles their job. For the analogy to work, Giovansanti would need to be failing at something in his personal life that resembles traffic enforcement. Instead he's doing the exact thing his job exists to prevent.
TulliusCicero 6mo ago
> I don't understand the basis for applying this standard to cops. Because those other examples don't involve breaking the law. At the risk of pointing out the obvious: society holds breaking the law to be more serious than being fat or not making your bed. Now, speeding is very much a lesser form of breaking the law...but then again, very few people have literally hundreds of speeding tickets.
redsocksfan45 6mo ago
[dead]
ButlerianJihad 6mo ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism

giantg2 6mo ago

What that spokesperson is saying isn't the whole truth. Departments can discipline or terminate people who dont meet their character clause, including being a scofflaw. They only apply it in whatever way they feel benefits them.

nkrisc 6mo ago
That’s my point, essentially, that they chose not to fire such a BS reason that doesn’t even suffice.

tootie 6mo ago

This kind of thing is egregious, but they get away with stuff like this all the time. I live a few blocks from an NYPD precinct house and they park all their personal vehicles on the sidewalk all the time every day. It's less dangerous than speeding, but it's a quality of life issue as well as simple fairness. They are in charge of ticketing parking violations but explicitly ignore their own violations.