7 ms·

The article misses two really important points. 1. Police officers are people under an intense amount of pressure in a dangerous line of work. Ability to disse

The article misses two really important points. 1. Police officers are people under an intense amount of pressure in a dangerous line of work. Ability to dissent from police is good - abusing police really, really isn't. The vast majority of police are really nice people, and will work with you and help you on a wide range of things. Like in other professions, some cops suck or are incompetent to varying degrees, but most are pretty good sorts. The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. 2. The article did gloss over it, but yes, it is really impractical to get hostile to anyone that has power over you - even including the electric company. People are people - you remember the last time someone was seriously a jerk to you? Remember how you felt? Now, do you remember the last time it happened in relation to your work? Would you say you worked harder to please that person afterwards, or would you say you held at least a bit of an "F you" attitude? That's just a practical point. Police officers are people. They undergo training to react more sensibly and less emotionally, but they're going to react way more friendly and cooperative with people who are friendly and cooperative with them. Yeah, sure, it shouldn't be like that. I guess technically an employee at the electric company should work doubletime to get your power back on even if you're cursing and raising your voice at them and calling them names. But the world doesn't work like that. So many places like to list every police misconduct incident in the last xyz years every time something happens. They don't mark down or just pay lip service to all the lives saved, and all the officers killed in the line of duty doing good work. Police and citizens are fundamentally "on the same team" - less tension and more respect between both groups would be a good thing. Articles that go hard to one side don't promote that.

jmillikin 17y ago
The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. The 911 caller has claimed several parts of Crowley's report are false[1]. Given this, I trust Gates' version of the events over Crowley's. According to Gates, he was arrested after following the officer onto the house's porch, when he demanding the officer's name and identification number (which Crowley was legally obliged to provide). Furthermore, as Gates had a bronchial infection at the time[2], he wouldn't have been able to yell / abuse the officers in the way they claim occured. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html [2] http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0 http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0
ricree 17y ago
I don't agree with this comment, but are the votes against it really that reasonable? To me, it appears more as "-1:I Disagree" votes, which IMO ought to be avoided when possible. If anything, perhaps it would be better to instead vote up jmillikin's rebuttal.
lionhearted 17y ago
Would some of the people who anonymously downvoted care to explain why? When I was a teenager, I had some anti-police/anti-law angst like a lot of people in free countries feel and express. After traveling, and seeing how police operate in the second and third world, I can confidently say we have some pretty outstanding officers in the United States. A good friend's father is a policeman as well, so I've gotten to hear a few stories of how policework goes. Here's the points I made: Point #1: Abusing police is not okay, gets in the way of their work, and at some point, is no longer protected speech but instead a crime. I don't know where that line is, but it's somewhere. Point #2: Being rude and insulting to any people with power over you is likely a bad play, and they'll probably make your life harder. Point #3: The article mentions a number of negative police incidents, but really doesn't give much respect to the vast majority of officers who are doing a good job in hard work. I think that's a bad thing. I'd be happy to discuss with anyone who disagrees philosophically or factually, and hopefully I'll learn something.
- jibiki 17y ago
  "Point #3: The article mentions a number of negative police incidents, but really doesn't give much respect to the vast majority of officers who are doing a good job in hard work. I think that's a bad thing." Every time you criticize creationism, make sure you also point out all the really good things Christians do. Every time you criticize a movie, make sure you also point out all the really cool films Hollywood puts out. Every time you criticize a politician, make sure you also point out all the really good things that the government does. ... The article is not about whether the police are good or bad. The article is about whether the police have too much power.
- emmett 17y ago
  1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the two. Saying "Leave me alone, you useless pigs" is not interfering with police business; it's hard to imagine an example use of speech that would be. 2: That's true, but the whole point of the article is that even though it might be inconvenient to you to challenge the police when they abuse their power, it is still an abuse of power. This whole question is specifically addressed in the article. 3: This article is specifically about systematic abuse of police power. That's a real problem. Its truth has no dependence on them complimenting the police who don't abuse their power. This is completely irrelevant to whether the article's argument is true. In short, your 2/3 of your arguments are irrelevant to the article completely. Your first point, while engaging the article, is essentially contradiction by assertion (you provide no evidence that the kinds of abuses discussed in the article could ever be considered interference with police work). So that's a very very weak point. That's probably why you were voted down.
fgimenez 17y ago
I understand the pressure, and it makes sense that we should treat them as respectfully as any other person. Yet, police should be expected to react rationally regardless of the situation. They should be prepared for all manner of verbal abuse; it comes with the job. As an example, take a look at E.R. doctors. They treat a lot of people who are insanely abusive, both physically and verbally. Do they refuse to treat these patients? No, they are required by law and by their hippocratic oath to care for their patients. I work at UCSF, and residents tell me their war stories about drugged up patients who scream profanities at the doctors endlessly. Should a resident retaliate in any way, they would be pulled from their program. This process forces E.R. doctors to have thick skin and learn to cope with assholes on the job. If we are to give police officers this insane amount of power to the public, we should expect nothing less than their ability to withstand some idiot's verbal tyrades.

jmillikin 17y ago

The officer's report from the Gates incident had Gates coming out onto the street and yelling more after Gates had left his home. I don't know at what point yelling at police officers starts getting in the way of that work, but there is that point somewhere. The 911 caller has claimed several parts of Crowley's report are false[1]. Given this, I trust Gates' version of the events over Crowley's. According to Gates, he was arrested after following the officer onto the house's porch, when he demanding the officer's name and identification number (which Crowley was legally obliged to provide). Furthermore, as Gates had a bronchial infection at the time[2], he wouldn't have been able to yell / abuse the officers in the way they claim occured. [1] http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/gates.arrest/index.html [2] http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0 http://www.theroot.com/print/19236?page=0%2C0

ricree 17y ago

I don't agree with this comment, but are the votes against it really that reasonable? To me, it appears more as "-1:I Disagree" votes, which IMO ought to be avoided when possible. If anything, perhaps it would be better to instead vote up jmillikin's rebuttal.

lionhearted 17y ago

Would some of the people who anonymously downvoted care to explain why? When I was a teenager, I had some anti-police/anti-law angst like a lot of people in free countries feel and express. After traveling, and seeing how police operate in the second and third world, I can confidently say we have some pretty outstanding officers in the United States. A good friend's father is a policeman as well, so I've gotten to hear a few stories of how policework goes. Here's the points I made: Point #1: Abusing police is not okay, gets in the way of their work, and at some point, is no longer protected speech but instead a crime. I don't know where that line is, but it's somewhere. Point #2: Being rude and insulting to any people with power over you is likely a bad play, and they'll probably make your life harder. Point #3: The article mentions a number of negative police incidents, but really doesn't give much respect to the vast majority of officers who are doing a good job in hard work. I think that's a bad thing. I'd be happy to discuss with anyone who disagrees philosophically or factually, and hopefully I'll learn something.

jibiki 17y ago
"Point #3: The article mentions a number of negative police incidents, but really doesn't give much respect to the vast majority of officers who are doing a good job in hard work. I think that's a bad thing." Every time you criticize creationism, make sure you also point out all the really good things Christians do. Every time you criticize a movie, make sure you also point out all the really cool films Hollywood puts out. Every time you criticize a politician, make sure you also point out all the really good things that the government does. ... The article is not about whether the police are good or bad. The article is about whether the police have too much power.
emmett 17y ago
1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the two. Saying "Leave me alone, you useless pigs" is not interfering with police business; it's hard to imagine an example use of speech that would be. 2: That's true, but the whole point of the article is that even though it might be inconvenient to you to challenge the police when they abuse their power, it is still an abuse of power. This whole question is specifically addressed in the article. 3: This article is specifically about systematic abuse of police power. That's a real problem. Its truth has no dependence on them complimenting the police who don't abuse their power. This is completely irrelevant to whether the article's argument is true. In short, your 2/3 of your arguments are irrelevant to the article completely. Your first point, while engaging the article, is essentially contradiction by assertion (you provide no evidence that the kinds of abuses discussed in the article could ever be considered interference with police work). So that's a very very weak point. That's probably why you were voted down.

fgimenez 17y ago

I understand the pressure, and it makes sense that we should treat them as respectfully as any other person. Yet, police should be expected to react rationally regardless of the situation. They should be prepared for all manner of verbal abuse; it comes with the job. As an example, take a look at E.R. doctors. They treat a lot of people who are insanely abusive, both physically and verbally. Do they refuse to treat these patients? No, they are required by law and by their hippocratic oath to care for their patients. I work at UCSF, and residents tell me their war stories about drugged up patients who scream profanities at the doctors endlessly. Should a resident retaliate in any way, they would be pulled from their program. This process forces E.R. doctors to have thick skin and learn to cope with assholes on the job. If we are to give police officers this insane amount of power to the public, we should expect nothing less than their ability to withstand some idiot's verbal tyrades.