4 ms·

This is where the warm fuzzy blankets of inalienable rights and equal treatment start to fray. The police officers have a right to work in a safe (as far as po

by Ntrails 12y ago

This is where the warm fuzzy blankets of inalienable rights and equal treatment start to fray. The police officers have a right to work in a safe (as far as possible) environment. That means the aggressive/resisting prisoner is cuffed whilst being booked, with no shoes. Your next choice is to either treat all prisoners like the aggressive one, or to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily. Equality is a fine goal, but in reality it results in everyone getting treated poorly in this context.

onion2k 12y ago
to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily What I'm suggesting is that the default position should always be not restraining people. Removing someone's freedom should never be done lightly. In the case of Aaron Schwartz it was. I would argue that some police officers tend to default to the position of treating someone badly - not violently, but in a way that assumes their guilt, assumes that they need to be restrained, or assumes that they're deliberately hiding something. That is completely the wrong way to do things in a civilised society. Police officers should only ever act with force if they're protecting themselves or others, and always with the absolute minimum action necessary, and they should always stop when the threat has been removed. Very occasionally that will require restraining someone and taking their shoes, but probably in far fewer cases than actually happens. Restraining someone who isn't violent 'just in case' is an appalling thing to do - and is exactly what results from everyone being treated poorly.
- growupkids 12y ago
  I'm sure you realize people are handcuffed for the officers safety. Not to dehumanize them. First offenders, even so called non-violent ones have been know to panic under the stress of an arrest and have been known to attack officers or attempt to flee. I'm not suggesting Aaron would have done this, but the officers don't know him, and these procedures dont just exist to treat someone poorly. I'm not sure what your proposed solution is, assume the best until someone does attack an officer or tries to escape? I agree it would be nice to assume the best, but it doesn't seem practical. With regard to what Aaron was accused of, I'm not sure why they required an arrest anyway. Shouldn't this have just been a civil case? It seems a bit excessive to arrest and book someone for an alleged copyright violation.
  - voxic11 12y ago
    Man I wish I could just arbitrarily handcuff people who might possibly consider hurting me.
    - cafard 12y ago
      If you sign up with your local police force, you might be able to me a few more.
- Ntrails 12y ago
  First, Just in case is a pretty dismissive statement. If last week some scrawny kid pulled a boot knife in custody and my buddy Frank (you remember Frank, tall guy, worked nights a lot to avoid his wife - yeah the one with the dodgy leg) got cut you'll find my attitude to custody risk change pretty heavily. Every single suspect is getting cuffed and de booted because fuck them I'm not risking my life for no reason. Second once you treat people differently based on perception of behaviour (professional judgement) you need oversight. Once you need oversight you need records. Once you need records booking takes longer. Ok. So now we've got evidence that police discriminate due to race/gender/something and bobs your uncle everyone gets locked down for booking again to undo that. Armchair policing reminds me a lot of armchair generalling - sure is easy to say what should (have) happen(ed) when you're completely removed from the situation. Police officers are irrational human beings who are influenced by all sorts of extraneous factors on any given day. Not to mention that's with the assumption they're basically good people doing their best to do the right thing™ which probs doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Of course I don't have answers, I just think this stuff is really hard.
- bane 12y ago
  Honestly, I think the point you're making is a great ideal, and one we should continuously aim for. I don't want to seem overly dismissive, I agree with you completely that I would want to live in the world you're describing. It's a shame that both of us don't, and for reasons that are complicated and very hard.
wolfgke 12y ago
> or to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily. With great power comes great responsibility.

by Ntrails 12y ago

onion2k 12y ago

to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily What I'm suggesting is that the default position should always be not restraining people. Removing someone's freedom should never be done lightly. In the case of Aaron Schwartz it was. I would argue that some police officers tend to default to the position of treating someone badly - not violently, but in a way that assumes their guilt, assumes that they need to be restrained, or assumes that they're deliberately hiding something. That is completely the wrong way to do things in a civilised society. Police officers should only ever act with force if they're protecting themselves or others, and always with the absolute minimum action necessary, and they should always stop when the threat has been removed. Very occasionally that will require restraining someone and taking their shoes, but probably in far fewer cases than actually happens. Restraining someone who isn't violent 'just in case' is an appalling thing to do - and is exactly what results from everyone being treated poorly.

growupkids 12y ago
I'm sure you realize people are handcuffed for the officers safety. Not to dehumanize them. First offenders, even so called non-violent ones have been know to panic under the stress of an arrest and have been known to attack officers or attempt to flee. I'm not suggesting Aaron would have done this, but the officers don't know him, and these procedures dont just exist to treat someone poorly. I'm not sure what your proposed solution is, assume the best until someone does attack an officer or tries to escape? I agree it would be nice to assume the best, but it doesn't seem practical. With regard to what Aaron was accused of, I'm not sure why they required an arrest anyway. Shouldn't this have just been a civil case? It seems a bit excessive to arrest and book someone for an alleged copyright violation.
- voxic11 12y ago
  Man I wish I could just arbitrarily handcuff people who might possibly consider hurting me.
  - cafard 12y ago
    If you sign up with your local police force, you might be able to me a few more.
Ntrails 12y ago
First, Just in case is a pretty dismissive statement. If last week some scrawny kid pulled a boot knife in custody and my buddy Frank (you remember Frank, tall guy, worked nights a lot to avoid his wife - yeah the one with the dodgy leg) got cut you'll find my attitude to custody risk change pretty heavily. Every single suspect is getting cuffed and de booted because fuck them I'm not risking my life for no reason. Second once you treat people differently based on perception of behaviour (professional judgement) you need oversight. Once you need oversight you need records. Once you need records booking takes longer. Ok. So now we've got evidence that police discriminate due to race/gender/something and bobs your uncle everyone gets locked down for booking again to undo that. Armchair policing reminds me a lot of armchair generalling - sure is easy to say what should (have) happen(ed) when you're completely removed from the situation. Police officers are irrational human beings who are influenced by all sorts of extraneous factors on any given day. Not to mention that's with the assumption they're basically good people doing their best to do the right thing™ which probs doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Of course I don't have answers, I just think this stuff is really hard.
bane 12y ago
Honestly, I think the point you're making is a great ideal, and one we should continuously aim for. I don't want to seem overly dismissive, I agree with you completely that I would want to live in the world you're describing. It's a shame that both of us don't, and for reasons that are complicated and very hard.

wolfgke 12y ago

> or to allow officers to use judgement as to when someone needs to be restrained heavily. With great power comes great responsibility.