4 ms·

Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. There was a story th

Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. There was a story that made the rounds a while ago… A felon flees police in a car, and later specifically swerves left to run-over the cop up ahead that is trying to deploy spikes on the road, and ends up running over his legs. Minutes later that felon crashes the car. At the same time cops run out on him (while lying on the ground) and (having learned of him trying to kill the other cop), react badly and give him a half-a-dozen or less punches and kicks ... lasts a few seconds. When the media reported on this, they cut out everything but a man laying on the ground and a group of white cops attacking him. Everyone had a field-day on the internet saying how this was a police state. But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their lives to do so.

garuda 14y ago
On the exact same day as that felon fled the police and crashed a car, millions of ordinary citizens obeyed the law and worked to make the world a better place... But none of that makes criminals any less of a problem. And decent cops stopping crime does nothing to lessen the harm done when other cops commit crimes.
pstuart 14y ago
Yes, sometimes it's misreported. Many times it's spot on: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/
glesica 14y ago
So the cops who did their jobs should get medals? I don't care that hundreds of thousands of cops did their jobs, that's what I pay them for. What I care about is that the cops who don't do their jobs are punished. The things police officers and other officials get away with is what makes this a police state.
- luketongs 14y ago
  you do care a little though ey? but understandable
rdtsc 14y ago
> But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their lives to do so. Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers. It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow cops who don't fuck up need to be acknowledged and sent a fruit cake. The hidden assumption here is perhaps that everyone starts to accept that there a lot of corruption and screws up by cops (this is indicative by the focus on "well there are a still some good cops, right, right...?") > Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. This is just the normalization of reporting. Before these stories were not reported and were covered up. If it weren't for citizens with cameras (phones) we would have not seen a lot of police brutality videos. When US is claimed to be a corrupt police state that is often in comparison with its propaganda image or the image people imagine US should/could be. Nobody is surprised if North Korean cops take bribes or torture someone. Nobody believe it is a state with the "rule of law" in it. But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does, because people (fortunately) still expect more from US law enforcement. But as I pointed out that starts to change.
- duaneb 14y ago
  > But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does I don't think so. I would assume people in all jobs abuse their power, not just police, and not just in the US.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  rdtsc isn't defending the actions of bad cops by pointing out that the vast majority of cops are good cops, he's saying that in a police state, the majority of cops will be corrupt arseholes, which isn't the case here in the USA. Thus, all of the claims that the USA is a police state is a police state are superficial, and I agree. We are certainly headed in that direction, but we are not there yet, not even close, really.
linuxhansl 14y ago
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The police applying reciprocal violence is most definitely not appropriate in any situation.
philwelch 14y ago
Here's a selective filter: when a cop is murdered by a civilian in the line of duty, the civilian goes to prison. When a civilian is murdered by the cop, the cop might lose his job, or he might just get suspended with pay. Here's another selective filter: if a cop wants to shoot a taser at me and electrocute me, the worst he's going to get is a disciplinary hearing. If I as much as touch a police officer on the shoulder, I could be arrested for assaulting an officer (and will probably take the taser shot as well). The fact is, some cops are more willing to risk a civilian's life to protect their own than to risk their lives to protect a civilian. That's what it means when they decide to shoot a woodcarver to death because he's holding his carving knife. And when there is zero tolerance for cop killers while killer cops walk free, we have a problem.
- GauntletWizard 14y ago
  Here's your goddamn selective filter: When a cop is murdered by a civilian, there's very little in the way of good reason why the civilian should be willing/required to use lethal force; The proper remedy for abuses of power by the police is a day in court, as broken as that can be. When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force in that situation. We've got a system where you have to prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt". The threat of violence against police officers is a pretty big and common "reasonable doubt", when talking about killings with a police officer as the defendant, and a significant part of that is assholes like you who seem to think that violence against police officers is justified.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    > When a cop is murdered by a civilian, there's very little in the way of good reason why the civilian should be willing/required to use lethal force; The proper remedy for abuses of power by the police is a day in court, as broken as that can be. The cop never gets his day in court. Go on, look it up. Almost no cop-on-civilian homicides ever go to trial. Charges are never filed. It's not in the interests of prosecutors to cross law enforcement. By the way, look up Randy Weaver. He was acquitted of murdering law enforcement officers on the basis of self-defense. Unfortunately, the FBI sniper who shot his wife in the head while she was holding their baby was never charged. > When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force in that situation. It's the right of everyone, not just cops, to defend themselves with lethal force. The difference is that I, as a civilian, would not get away with shooting a woodcarver to death just because he was holding a carving knife. Someone who volunteers to protect civilians for a living should have an equal or higher bar for self-defense, not a lower one. It's the duty of a police officer to risk his life to protect a civilian, not the other way around. > a significant part of that is assholes like you who seem to think that violence against police officers is justified I don't think violence against police officers is justified, you fascist pig. I think what's justified is for killer cops to have their day in court, not just suspension without pay followed by a graceful early retirement.

garuda 14y ago

On the exact same day as that felon fled the police and crashed a car, millions of ordinary citizens obeyed the law and worked to make the world a better place... But none of that makes criminals any less of a problem. And decent cops stopping crime does nothing to lessen the harm done when other cops commit crimes.

pstuart 14y ago

Yes, sometimes it's misreported. Many times it's spot on: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/ http://www.reddit.com/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut/

glesica 14y ago

So the cops who did their jobs should get medals? I don't care that hundreds of thousands of cops did their jobs, that's what I pay them for. What I care about is that the cops who don't do their jobs are punished. The things police officers and other officials get away with is what makes this a police state.

luketongs 14y ago
you do care a little though ey? but understandable

rdtsc 14y ago

> But no one acknowledged that the same exact day, 100s of thousands of cops did their job, stopping crime and protecting the citizens. Some risking their lives to do so. Nobody acknowledged that probably because that is their fucking job. That is what they are getting paid to do and are entrusted with certain powers. It is funny how the tables were turned and the baseline was reset. Now somehow cops who don't fuck up need to be acknowledged and sent a fruit cake. The hidden assumption here is perhaps that everyone starts to accept that there a lot of corruption and screws up by cops (this is indicative by the focus on "well there are a still some good cops, right, right...?") > Most of the stories I see that claim how the US is some type of a corrupt police state are selectively filtering and misreporting reality. This is just the normalization of reporting. Before these stories were not reported and were covered up. If it weren't for citizens with cameras (phones) we would have not seen a lot of police brutality videos. When US is claimed to be a corrupt police state that is often in comparison with its propaganda image or the image people imagine US should/could be. Nobody is surprised if North Korean cops take bribes or torture someone. Nobody believe it is a state with the "rule of law" in it. But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does, because people (fortunately) still expect more from US law enforcement. But as I pointed out that starts to change.

duaneb 14y ago
> But a lot of people are surprised if a cop in US does I don't think so. I would assume people in all jobs abuse their power, not just police, and not just in the US.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
notdrunkatall 14y ago
rdtsc isn't defending the actions of bad cops by pointing out that the vast majority of cops are good cops, he's saying that in a police state, the majority of cops will be corrupt arseholes, which isn't the case here in the USA. Thus, all of the claims that the USA is a police state is a police state are superficial, and I agree. We are certainly headed in that direction, but we are not there yet, not even close, really.

linuxhansl 14y ago

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The police applying reciprocal violence is most definitely not appropriate in any situation.

philwelch 14y ago

Here's a selective filter: when a cop is murdered by a civilian in the line of duty, the civilian goes to prison. When a civilian is murdered by the cop, the cop might lose his job, or he might just get suspended with pay. Here's another selective filter: if a cop wants to shoot a taser at me and electrocute me, the worst he's going to get is a disciplinary hearing. If I as much as touch a police officer on the shoulder, I could be arrested for assaulting an officer (and will probably take the taser shot as well). The fact is, some cops are more willing to risk a civilian's life to protect their own than to risk their lives to protect a civilian. That's what it means when they decide to shoot a woodcarver to death because he's holding his carving knife. And when there is zero tolerance for cop killers while killer cops walk free, we have a problem.

GauntletWizard 14y ago
Here's your goddamn selective filter: When a cop is murdered by a civilian, there's very little in the way of good reason why the civilian should be willing/required to use lethal force; The proper remedy for abuses of power by the police is a day in court, as broken as that can be. When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force in that situation. We've got a system where you have to prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt". The threat of violence against police officers is a pretty big and common "reasonable doubt", when talking about killings with a police officer as the defendant, and a significant part of that is assholes like you who seem to think that violence against police officers is justified.
- philwelch 14y ago
  > When a cop is murdered by a civilian, there's very little in the way of good reason why the civilian should be willing/required to use lethal force; The proper remedy for abuses of power by the police is a day in court, as broken as that can be. The cop never gets his day in court. Go on, look it up. Almost no cop-on-civilian homicides ever go to trial. Charges are never filed. It's not in the interests of prosecutors to cross law enforcement. By the way, look up Randy Weaver. He was acquitted of murdering law enforcement officers on the basis of self-defense. Unfortunately, the FBI sniper who shot his wife in the head while she was holding their baby was never charged. > When a cop murders a civilian, there's a very plausible reason: He felt his life was threatened, and is authorized to use lethal force in that situation. It's the right of everyone, not just cops, to defend themselves with lethal force. The difference is that I, as a civilian, would not get away with shooting a woodcarver to death just because he was holding a carving knife. Someone who volunteers to protect civilians for a living should have an equal or higher bar for self-defense, not a lower one. It's the duty of a police officer to risk his life to protect a civilian, not the other way around. > a significant part of that is assholes like you who seem to think that violence against police officers is justified I don't think violence against police officers is justified, you fascist pig. I think what's justified is for killer cops to have their day in court, not just suspension without pay followed by a graceful early retirement.