4 ms·

To everyone who wants to answer "Fuck the police": No, don't. If your hometown has a police department that acts like a gang: Don't fuck the police. Don't dat

To everyone who wants to answer "Fuck the police": No, don't. If your hometown has a police department that acts like a gang: Don't fuck the police. Don't date, them, either. Don't sell to police. If they want groceries or gas, let them have to explicitly confiscate the stuff. Don't talk to police officers unless they force you. Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty. There are two ways a community can fight against a mafia -- a shooting war, or comprehensive shunning. Guess which works better in the long term?

4ad 12y ago
I don't know, which one? Because I have never seen shunning work, ever. Aggression seldom helps, but at least there are documented cases where it worked. I have never seen any documented case of shunning producing any effect.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  All I got for you is that it worked in my hometown to send away a prefetto (unelected bureaucrat with some executive and police powers). The guy basically ended up placing himself under house arrest because he had to get gas at night at self-services when there was nobody to tell him "i am not selling you any gas", couldn't buy fresh food because he had to use the self-checkout at the supermarket or not eat, etc. This lasted around six months, after which he quit.
  - dalke 12y ago
    This is an example of ostracism. I think the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism#Fall_into_disuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism#Fall_into_disuse is interesting and relevant: > The threat to the democratic system in the late 5th century came not from tyranny but from oligarchic coups, threats of which became prominent after two brief seizures of power, in 411 by "the Four Hundred" and in 404 BC by "the Thirty", which were not dependent on single powerful individuals. Ostracism was not an effective defence against the oligarchic threat and it was not so used. "The police" constitute a relatively large group, so the ostracism you saw against one person might not be so effective.
melling 12y ago
Neither one? Can you provide evidence that shunning works? For example, if a police officer is checking out in your store and you say "sorry, I'm not selling to you", I think you've just created a very ugly situation.
mcdoh 12y ago
Often, especially in the DC metro area, police do not live in the same jurisdictions that they work in.
brianfitz 12y ago
Bad behavior thrives under misaligned incentives -- especially when it goes unnoticed. In such cases, the best remedy is to shine a light on the problem. Accountability, rather than aggression, will garner far better results.
dalke 12y ago
In some places, not selling to police is illegal discrimination. For example, in California it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Long v. Valentino (1989). http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 . A police offer attended a public ACLU meeting. Once the ACLU organizers discovered that this was the case, they told the officer to leave. The trial established that this was illegal discrimination under Unruh. > And defendants' attorneys correctly agreed at oral argument that an announcement such as "You can't eat in my diner because you are a lawyer, bricklayer, female, or Indian chief" would be actionable under the Unruh Act, although words alone were the means employed to effect unlawful discrimination. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35-36 [219 Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195]; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 726 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161].) Nevertheless, defendants do urge an exception for on duty police officers, a proposition we consider in the following section. ... > At the same time, however, police officers are literally on duty 24 hours a day under California law. (See People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 746 [147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644]; People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626, 631 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401]; Pen. Code, ?? 142, 830.1.) And they are as much entitled to the protections of the Unruh Act as any other citizen. They may not be refused service in a restaurant, denied an apartment, or ejected from a public meeting merely because of their occupation, whether working a shift or on vacation. We find defendants' position on this point, at least as articulated at oral argument, to be as reprehensible as the police abuses decried above. Police officers as individuals have rights, too, and can bring actions for violations of those rights even though their injury has arisen in some way related to the performance of their duties. (City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538, fn. 9 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d 137].) > A somewhat different problem is presented by the contention that a police officer on a mission to spy on individuals and organizations holding a public meeting may be excluded, however. We agree that is not quite the same as refusing to serve a beat cop a cup of coffee because the owner does not like police. ... BTW, compare your "Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty." to the above mention that they are "literally on duty 24 hours a day".
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  You can say "I do not feel safe interacting with someone who has a firearm, please come back without". That means you have to be consistent about it, of course, and also kick out other members of the public who have a weapon. That's legitimate because it has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, or occupation - a lot of stores have "no firearms allowed" signs, you just have to add "absolutely no exceptions". It's also the same logic behind asset forfeiture... you don't have a problem with a person, you have a problem with a thing. So, +1 to poetic justice I guess. If your business is internet-only, I guess it doesn't work.
crimsoneer 12y ago
Alternatively, lobby your democratic representatives to change the damn law? The UK has similar laws, but they don't create perverse incentives.

4ad 12y ago

I don't know, which one? Because I have never seen shunning work, ever. Aggression seldom helps, but at least there are documented cases where it worked. I have never seen any documented case of shunning producing any effect.

spiritplumber 12y ago
All I got for you is that it worked in my hometown to send away a prefetto (unelected bureaucrat with some executive and police powers). The guy basically ended up placing himself under house arrest because he had to get gas at night at self-services when there was nobody to tell him "i am not selling you any gas", couldn't buy fresh food because he had to use the self-checkout at the supermarket or not eat, etc. This lasted around six months, after which he quit.
- dalke 12y ago
  This is an example of ostracism. I think the comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism#Fall_into_disuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism#Fall_into_disuse is interesting and relevant: > The threat to the democratic system in the late 5th century came not from tyranny but from oligarchic coups, threats of which became prominent after two brief seizures of power, in 411 by "the Four Hundred" and in 404 BC by "the Thirty", which were not dependent on single powerful individuals. Ostracism was not an effective defence against the oligarchic threat and it was not so used. "The police" constitute a relatively large group, so the ostracism you saw against one person might not be so effective.

melling 12y ago

Neither one? Can you provide evidence that shunning works? For example, if a police officer is checking out in your store and you say "sorry, I'm not selling to you", I think you've just created a very ugly situation.

mcdoh 12y ago

Often, especially in the DC metro area, police do not live in the same jurisdictions that they work in.

brianfitz 12y ago

Bad behavior thrives under misaligned incentives -- especially when it goes unnoticed. In such cases, the best remedy is to shine a light on the problem. Accountability, rather than aggression, will garner far better results.

dalke 12y ago

In some places, not selling to police is illegal discrimination. For example, in California it is a violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. See Long v. Valentino (1989). http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/66962 . A police offer attended a public ACLU meeting. Once the ACLU organizers discovered that this was the case, they told the officer to leave. The trial established that this was illegal discrimination under Unruh. > And defendants' attorneys correctly agreed at oral argument that an announcement such as "You can't eat in my diner because you are a lawyer, bricklayer, female, or Indian chief" would be actionable under the Unruh Act, although words alone were the means employed to effect unlawful discrimination. (See Koire v. Metro Car Wash (1985) 40 Cal.3d 24, 35-36 [219 Cal.Rptr. 133, 707 P.2d 195]; Marina Point, Ltd. v. Wolfson (1982) 30 Cal.3d 721, 726 [180 Cal.Rptr. 496, 640 P.2d 115, 30 A.L.R.4th 1161].) Nevertheless, defendants do urge an exception for on duty police officers, a proposition we consider in the following section. ... > At the same time, however, police officers are literally on duty 24 hours a day under California law. (See People v. Corey (1978) 21 Cal.3d 738, 746 [147 Cal.Rptr. 639, 581 P.2d 644]; People v. Derby (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 626, 631 [2 Cal.Rptr. 401]; Pen. Code, ?? 142, 830.1.) And they are as much entitled to the protections of the Unruh Act as any other citizen. They may not be refused service in a restaurant, denied an apartment, or ejected from a public meeting merely because of their occupation, whether working a shift or on vacation. We find defendants' position on this point, at least as articulated at oral argument, to be as reprehensible as the police abuses decried above. Police officers as individuals have rights, too, and can bring actions for violations of those rights even though their injury has arisen in some way related to the performance of their duties. (City of Long Beach v. Bozek (1982) 31 Cal.3d 527, 538, fn. 9 [183 Cal.Rptr. 86, 645 P.2d 137].) > A somewhat different problem is presented by the contention that a police officer on a mission to spy on individuals and organizations holding a public meeting may be excluded, however. We agree that is not quite the same as refusing to serve a beat cop a cup of coffee because the owner does not like police. ... BTW, compare your "Don't talk to them at all when they are off duty." to the above mention that they are "literally on duty 24 hours a day".

spiritplumber 12y ago
You can say "I do not feel safe interacting with someone who has a firearm, please come back without". That means you have to be consistent about it, of course, and also kick out other members of the public who have a weapon. That's legitimate because it has nothing to do with race, gender, ethnicity, or occupation - a lot of stores have "no firearms allowed" signs, you just have to add "absolutely no exceptions". It's also the same logic behind asset forfeiture... you don't have a problem with a person, you have a problem with a thing. So, +1 to poetic justice I guess. If your business is internet-only, I guess it doesn't work.

crimsoneer 12y ago

Alternatively, lobby your democratic representatives to change the damn law? The UK has similar laws, but they don't create perverse incentives.