4 ms·

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 fr

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.
- lionhearted 17y ago
  Thank you for the reply, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping we might have. > 1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the two. I was trying not to. In the original comment, I wrote, "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." I'm not sure where the line is, and I'm not making a judgment call on Gates' arrest. I did mention the officer wrote in his report (which may be false or falsified - I don't know) that Gates followed him into the streets yelling at him. At some point, a person doing that is crossing a line from protected speech into interfering with police work. Again, I don't know where that line is - it's a particularly sticky subject. Police should probably err on the side of letting people air their thoughts in the form they choose. > 2. ... This whole question is specifically addressed in the article. Very briefly - and I get worried that some young person here, who is really idealistic, gets into trouble by asserting their rights to an officer while in college or whatever. For my part, I can't stand customs officials who go over the line and search me repeatedly and generally waste my time, but I'm extremely friendly and respectful and talk about the local sports even though I can't stand that scum. Y'know why? Because they'll mess with you if not. My part of the comment isn't an apology for bad policework, it's a practical note so people whipped into a frenzy don't get into trouble. [Also note - the two times I mouthed off to customs officials, I got an arduous, detailed search afterwards. I learned that real life lesson the hard way] > 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. Right! Systematic - that means happening all over the place. I don't think it is - the article points out a few brutal abuses of police power and doesn't give statistics for how common it is or put it in context of other nations. Our officers in the USA are pretty good. I'm a big rights guy - very big - but implying there's a huge problem when in fact it's a few isolated incidents would be a bad thing. Or who knows - maybe there is a systemic problem, but the article just has a few anecdotes and no statistics. And certainly, all of those anecdotes and no statistics are hostile. > 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. Well, I'm voting you up for taking the time to respond. Thank you for the discussion, and I look forward to more whenever you please.
DenisM 17y ago
Policemen being upset with verbal abuse is fine. Not working as hard? Fine, too. Arresting the person who is yelling insults is not fine - it's vindictiveness and abuse of power. There is really nothing special about the cop person deserving of more or less respect compared to other normal people. It's only the cop's mission that deserves deference and should define possible criminality of any communication initiative. For example: If a cop is aiming a sniper rifle to kill a hostage-taker, complimenting the cop on his uniform is interference, and should be a crime - it impedes the execution of the law. If a cop is walking down the street, hurling insults and making faces at him is not really impeding the execution of the law (uncivilized as it is), should not be a crime or grounds for arrest. Getting in the way may be a crime if the 5 seconds that took to sidestep the perp can actually impede the execution of the law. Asking for a badge number is interference, but is specifically enumerated as a trade-off worth making and not a crime. Now, sometimes cops are obligated to work with people who are being jerks. This problem is also well-known to DOL, USPS employees and even many people in private sector. There could be a separate law created that says "if by law we must work with you, by law you must behave or pay a measured fine". Such law then could provide deterrence against verbal abuse for all people who are not able to get out of obligation to work with nasty people. I doubt that arresting the insulter would be as a remedy in such law, at worst I see 10-minute detention to identify the person's name and address where the $250 fine could be mailed to, akin to a traffic ticket. And this protection should not be specific to only police, or even government employees - an ambulance worker, or someone assisting disabled people may also be not in a position to turn away the jerk, but then they should get protected as well. Overall I am in favor of measured responses, Powell's military doctrine should not be applied to your own citizenry.

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.

lionhearted 17y ago
Thank you for the reply, this is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping we might have. > 1: Abusing the police != being rude to the police. You're conflating the two. I was trying not to. In the original comment, I wrote, "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." I'm not sure where the line is, and I'm not making a judgment call on Gates' arrest. I did mention the officer wrote in his report (which may be false or falsified - I don't know) that Gates followed him into the streets yelling at him. At some point, a person doing that is crossing a line from protected speech into interfering with police work. Again, I don't know where that line is - it's a particularly sticky subject. Police should probably err on the side of letting people air their thoughts in the form they choose. > 2. ... This whole question is specifically addressed in the article. Very briefly - and I get worried that some young person here, who is really idealistic, gets into trouble by asserting their rights to an officer while in college or whatever. For my part, I can't stand customs officials who go over the line and search me repeatedly and generally waste my time, but I'm extremely friendly and respectful and talk about the local sports even though I can't stand that scum. Y'know why? Because they'll mess with you if not. My part of the comment isn't an apology for bad policework, it's a practical note so people whipped into a frenzy don't get into trouble. [Also note - the two times I mouthed off to customs officials, I got an arduous, detailed search afterwards. I learned that real life lesson the hard way] > 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. Right! Systematic - that means happening all over the place. I don't think it is - the article points out a few brutal abuses of police power and doesn't give statistics for how common it is or put it in context of other nations. Our officers in the USA are pretty good. I'm a big rights guy - very big - but implying there's a huge problem when in fact it's a few isolated incidents would be a bad thing. Or who knows - maybe there is a systemic problem, but the article just has a few anecdotes and no statistics. And certainly, all of those anecdotes and no statistics are hostile. > 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. Well, I'm voting you up for taking the time to respond. Thank you for the discussion, and I look forward to more whenever you please.

DenisM 17y ago

Policemen being upset with verbal abuse is fine. Not working as hard? Fine, too. Arresting the person who is yelling insults is not fine - it's vindictiveness and abuse of power. There is really nothing special about the cop person deserving of more or less respect compared to other normal people. It's only the cop's mission that deserves deference and should define possible criminality of any communication initiative. For example: If a cop is aiming a sniper rifle to kill a hostage-taker, complimenting the cop on his uniform is interference, and should be a crime - it impedes the execution of the law. If a cop is walking down the street, hurling insults and making faces at him is not really impeding the execution of the law (uncivilized as it is), should not be a crime or grounds for arrest. Getting in the way may be a crime if the 5 seconds that took to sidestep the perp can actually impede the execution of the law. Asking for a badge number is interference, but is specifically enumerated as a trade-off worth making and not a crime. Now, sometimes cops are obligated to work with people who are being jerks. This problem is also well-known to DOL, USPS employees and even many people in private sector. There could be a separate law created that says "if by law we must work with you, by law you must behave or pay a measured fine". Such law then could provide deterrence against verbal abuse for all people who are not able to get out of obligation to work with nasty people. I doubt that arresting the insulter would be as a remedy in such law, at worst I see 10-minute detention to identify the person's name and address where the $250 fine could be mailed to, akin to a traffic ticket. And this protection should not be specific to only police, or even government employees - an ambulance worker, or someone assisting disabled people may also be not in a position to turn away the jerk, but then they should get protected as well. Overall I am in favor of measured responses, Powell's military doctrine should not be applied to your own citizenry.