13 ms·

Nashville police chief shares message, responds to questions

387 points by whiddershins 12y ago

dang 12y ago
This was killed by user flags, but we unkilled it. It's surprisingly thoughtful and unusual enough to make it intellectually interesting and therefore on topic for this site.
- whiddershins 12y ago
  Thanks, I really thought so. I found his statements about the personal echochamber effect to be particularly insightful. Although police giving coffee and hot chocolate to protestors reads like a light-hearted PR move, it raises interesting questions about why police and protestors are by default at odds, when they often have overlapping concerns and agendas.
  - stefs 12y ago
    my thoughts exactly: policemen and -women are people and citizens too (with kids that probably wont grow to be police themselves), and citizens have an interest in upholding the law. it's NOT an us vs. them situation.
  - MBCook 12y ago
    The only times I can think of police being involved in protests are because they (at least appear) to be non-neutral. When the police are the target of the protest, it's pretty easy for them to appear to be on one side of the issue. If the people of Ferguson think the police don't protect them it shouldn't be surprising that the protestors don't want to obey them. The only other incident that comes to mind is the WTO protests in Seattle years ago. I remember the people felt like the police were being used to squash legitimate protests and suppress speech. But I know other protests happen. The various fast food woke protests earlier this year would be an example. Most of the time the police are out doing stuff like stopping really rowdy people from escalating things and managing traffic. I'd imagine most of these kind of protests (large marches, etc.) are scheduled but even when they weren't the police weren't seen as intruding because they were perceived to be neutral. That neutrality makes a big difference. With it the police are there to help/protect the protestors and keep things safe. Without it the police can start to feel like a military force putting down rebellion. And a crowd is going to react very differently to those two things.
- mcmancini 12y ago
  Thank you for doing so, this was an enjoyable and interesting read that I probably wouldn't have found otherwise.
- dubfan 12y ago
  That's disappointing. I come to HN to get away from political discussions.
  - wbronitsky 12y ago
    Then maybe you should not participate in them when they are here.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - akerl_ 12y ago
        Ok.
- colinbartlett 12y ago
  I appreciate that you check through all the flag-killed posts. Thanks for all the hard work!
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Thanks. This was a very worthwhile read, both in terms of demonstrating that the concept of 'public service' still has its champions and as an example of how to thoughtfully express disagreement.
vertis 12y ago
Any time the police are forced to go arresting people for protesting they've failed a little bit. This is especially true when the protests are about police. Granted there are times when they are left with no choice, but if there is a strong relationship established between the protesters and the police, such that the protesters believe that the police understand their concerns, how much less likely does this become?
- smtddr 12y ago
  One could also argue that there was an earlier failure(s) of the system if people reach the point of having to protest to feel like they're being heard. So the protestors already see the police as yet another force trying to silence them which definitely strains that relationship. I think the issue here is that the protestors don't want to talk to police; they want to talk to the political/legal/social people in power to listen to their complaints. So the police are seen like a 3rd-party summoned by the people in power to stop the protestors and the situation is worse when the protests are about the police itself.
  - jschwartzi 12y ago
    If the police were to start mass-arresting protesters, then that coupled with this situation could actually significantly reduce safety. Mobs are organic, and a single misunderstanding could easily lead to chaos.
MistahKoala 12y ago
If the letter received was representative of the 'fringe' 5%, I'm interested in how the other 90% read. It's quite anodyne, in my opinion.
- rtpg 12y ago
  I think his point is that the letters are coming from the 5%, where there's a silent majority. There's a silent majority that is probably frustrated by protests on the interstate, but arresting people for the "die ins"? I think most people agree that those protests are well within the freedom of assembly. Not many people write in to feel they are moderately satisfied with the way things are going, I would think.
- codyb 12y ago
  I'm going to assume that if it was representative of the 5%, it was of the 1% of that 5% who chose to position their thoughts in an eloquent and respectful manner. His reply is also an example of a positive, thoughtful, and respectful response to another's position. The letter was fruitful in that gave him much to espouse upon in his reply. In this way, it may just have been the perfect example for his community outreach. And I'd say it was an excellent choice.
jobu 12y ago
"It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts." I've heard this sentiment before, but never so well written.
- JoelSutherland 12y ago
  I love four sides as an alternative to both sides.
  - codyb 12y ago
    One of my final professors in college taught us to ensure that when looking at a position to examine both sides of every side, and if we want to be very thorough, to look at both sides of both sides of either side. It's a lesson that has stuck well and has helped me maintain perspective in a wide variety of situations. The old adage (I believe from the ancient Asian philosophies of Taoism and Zen) "Think thrice before you speak, and then only speak if you have thrice concluded it is worth hearing" is another way to keep yourself in check at times. How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my thought process!
    - adamclayman 12y ago
      I admire this whole chain of thought. - ADC
    - rokhayakebe 12y ago
      How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my thought process Most Talking is the output of a reflex, whereas it should be the output of reasoning.
lizzard 12y ago
Perfectly pitched and perfectly constructed!
sriram_sun 12y ago
Here is another gem "It is somewhat perplexing when children are injected into the conversation as an attempt to bolster a position or as an attempt to thwart the position of another." I was hesitant to read this at first as it had nothing to do with programming. However, I am glad I did. I would recommend the HN community to read both the mail and the response. The response was well thought out, organized and calls out a few biases we carry around.
- V7Theory 12y ago
  http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/davidson-obama-guns.jpg http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/davidson...
  - MBCook 12y ago
    Can you provide some context as to why you think this picture is a good example of using children as rhetoric instead of being a reasonable inclusion? For example if it was a bill to increase funding to elementary schools having the kids there for the photo-op seems fair. From the filename this seems to be on a gun bill, but I don't have enough information to understand your point (unless it's simply "Obama's done it", which is true of just about every politician).
    - JonathonW 12y ago
      The context: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/president-obama-announces-new-measures-prevent-gun-violence http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/president-obama-an... Yes, it was on a gun bill; the children are apparently kids who wrote the President letters regarding gun violence and school safety after the Sandy Hook school shootings.
    - stplsd 12y ago
      http://soundpolitics.com/Sotsrealizm.jpg http://soundpolitics.com/Sotsrealizm.jpg
smtddr 12y ago
Be sure to read the whole post, as well as the email chain below it. This was part of a complaint email sent to him: >>I wanted to send you this email to express my frustration and outrage at how the situation of these protesters is being handled in Nashville. The first night protesters marched here after the incidents in Ferguson they never should have been allowed to shut down the interstate. Instead of at least threatening to arrest them, they were served coffee and hot chocolate. This is how you deal with protests. Good job Nashville police; much respect. My own frustration lies with whoever sent this complaint.
- sriram_sun 12y ago
  Where are the email chains? I don't see any other emails on the tennessean's website.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    Hmm, I the article linked here has 'em in my browser... http://i.imgur.com/oMBV6K5.png http://i.imgur.com/oMBV6K5.png
    - sriram_sun 12y ago
      I parsed "email chains" as emails in addition to the original complaint and the response.
      - smtddr 12y ago
        sorry, I removed the "s" from "email chains" now.
sfeng 12y ago
He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all support our right to protest in a peaceful way without fear of a disproportionate response by law enforcement. I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional. The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.
- dubfan 12y ago
  The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
  - sfeng 12y ago
    > The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.
  - rtpg 12y ago
    so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run? Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
    - dubfan 12y ago
V7Theory 12y ago
It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't, but to do so he has to completely ignore the fact that protesters were not just being heard, but shutting down major highways and disrupting people's efforts to enter the mall, this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. Sure, if you ignore that then yeah, the writer is a total dope.
- MBCook 12y ago
  > It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't I'm guessing the second 'he' refers to the letter writer and not the chief. It's a little unclear from the sentence. This seemed like a very well written and thoughtful rebuttal to some of the concerns in the letter. I didn't get a tone that it was showing the letter's author they weren't 'well adjusted'. > [..] this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. If the protesters in Tennessee weren't being violent/criminal, why compare them to the protests in some other cities? It was mentioned that the highways were kept open after the first night. Sounds like the whole thing went pretty peacefully. If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision.
  - V7Theory 12y ago
    Your first assumption is correct, the chief was showing the letter writer that the letter writer wasn't well adjusted, but it looks like you figured that out. > why compare them to the protests in some other cities? You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to compare one to the other and not worry that they were the same. They were protesting the same thing and in a similar manner. While it hadn't escalated to the point of other protests, all other indications were there with no way of determining the stopping point of escalation. > If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision. Perhaps that may be true from the police officer's point of view but it doesn't offer any validation to citizens safety concerns. When we look at the incident from a standpoint of it being passed us, then it is only convenient to say that the police officers made the correct decision in allowing illegal acts, but it isn't necessarily true. The Problem with the chief's reply is that it ignores the citizens VALID safety concerns and then makes assumptions concerning the citizen's adjustment to society. If there had been no safety concerns, then the chief might have been justified in his assumption, but when the police force allows people to do large scale illegal acts that directly affect the lives of the people around them, then you can hardly say that concerns for safety aren't valid. So whether the citizen's concerns for safety are valid or not is the point that the article relies upon to justify the chief's response. I submit that the citizen's concerns for safety were valid, whether or not I would have felt the same (you have to "step out of your comfort zone" and try to avoid biases to understand that), and therefore the chief's reply was assuming and biased.
dchichkov 12y ago
"In the year 2013, our officers made over four hundred thousand vehicle stops, mostly for traffic violations. A citation was issued in only about one in six of those stops. Five of the six received warnings. This is the police exercising discretion for minor violations of the law. Few, if any, persons would argue that the police should have no discretion." Huh. Really? Warnings five out of six times? Is that pretty common?
- HillRat 12y ago
  Well, it's either an indication that the cops are engaging in aggressive profiling, or are remarkably free of pressure to write tickets. Surprisingly, the answer seems to be the latter -- Chief Anderson is an attorney who was legal counsel to the department's SWAT unit as well as a longtime Nashville cop, who appears to put great faith in building community-police relationships, and whose department has independently adopted stringent anti-profiling rules. Anderson also blew the whistle to Congress a few months ago on an attempt by Secret Service agents to mislead a suspect into believing they had a warrant. If the ACLU designed a supercop, it'd be this guy. Nashville -- who knew?
- Retra 12y ago
  Only one of the six times I've been pulled over have I been given a citation. In fact, only one out of 20 times that I speed near the police do I even get pulled over. This is an anecdotal and rough statistic, but in my experience the police are extremely lenient with traffic stops.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
femto 12y ago
> The police are merely a representative of a government formed by the people for the people—for all people Peelian Principles [1] explicitly say that the police force is not representing the government, as that's the job of the military. Firstly, the police force are citizens in uniform and part of the local community. The police are explicitly in place so the military can stay out of the community. Militarised police forces around the world would do well to keep in mind that they are making themselves redundant, since if the police are indistinguishable from the military, they might as well be done away with and replaced by the military. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
- danbruc 12y ago
  The word government is not the best choice, it should probably be state, not at last because governments come and go while the state stays. But in essence the statement is correct - policy and military enforce the laws on behalf of the citizens, the police to the inside of the state, the military to the outside.
  - femto 12y ago
    I respectfully disagree with the military=outside, police=inside distinction. For example, nations use the military internally in times of emergency, with the imposition of martial law. Similarly, police delegations get sent overseas on UN missions. In my mind, the distinction is consent and source of authority. The military works by imposing rule, the definition of rule coming from a higher level. The police work by enforcing behaviour, as defined by the community they are policing. Granted that the definition of community is subjective. My argument is the definition of "community" should be the smallest one possible that allows a positive outcome in the current situation. For example in a noise complaint, the police could appeal to a sense of right, based on the expectations of people in the street. The law wouldn't even come into it, as that is something from "outside". Only if that's unsuccessful would the police have to broaden the definition of community to include statutes and external influences. ---- Edit: I'd also add that ultimately, the military is not bound by the law. Their final brief is "get the job done" and they will answer for war crimes if they stuff up.
KayEss 12y ago
When did the plural for "person" become "persons" instead of "people"? Is this just some weird Americanism, or is there a specific difference in police jargon?
- dkokelley 12y ago
  You seem to be correct in that law enforcement uses 'persons' over 'people' more often. [1] I'm not entirely sure where the distinction comes from, but language can be such a funny thing. [1] http://grammarist.com/usage/people-persons/ http://grammarist.com/usage/people-persons/
  - KayEss 12y ago
    Strange how I'd never noticed "missing persons" as being an odd construct before. I guess I'd just heard it so often I wasn't really aware of how the phrase was constructed.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- HillRat 12y ago
  It's a legal (or pseudo-legal) tic, based on a formal grammatical rule that "people" refers to a large mass (such as the "people of the United States"), and "persons" refers to a finite body of, er, people. Technically, the plural of "person" is "persons," not "people," as the two terms share distinct Latin roots: persona vs. populus, the former referring to a physical person, and the latter to a sociocultural grouping (e.g., SPQR -- Senatus Populusque Romanus, "the Senate and People of Rome"). But we are more likely these days to use "people" as the proper plural of "person," and generally only encounter "persons" in more formal contexts.
- Retra 12y ago
  I always took it to mean the same category of distinction made in biological categories. That is, 'people' means a simple plural person, where "persons" means a plural of person categories. Like 'fish' means multiple fish, but 'fishes' means multiple species of fish. Then saying 'these persons' would essentially mean 'these groups of different kinds of people.' (But that could also just be implicit regardless of your word choice.) But... you can also use 'person' to mean the body of a person, so that 'persons' could mean multiple bodies. "They carried the weapons on their persons," for instance. Akin to how 'mice' is the plural of the animal, but 'mouses' is the plural of the computer peripheral.
awjr 12y ago
His response email is exceptional: "As imperfect humans, we have a tendency to limit our association with other persons to those persons who are most like us. Unfortunately, there is even more of a human tendency to stay within our comfort zone by further narrowing those associations to those persons who share our thoughts and opinions. By doing this we can avoid giving consideration to thoughts and ideas different than our own. This would make us uncomfortable. By considering only the thoughts and ideas we are in agreement with, we stay in our comfort zone. Our own biases get reinforced and reflected back at us leaving no room for any opinion but our own. By doing this, we often convince ourselves that the majority of the world shares opinion and that anyone with another opinion is, obviously, wrong. It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."

387 points by whiddershins 12y ago

dang 12y ago

This was killed by user flags, but we unkilled it. It's surprisingly thoughtful and unusual enough to make it intellectually interesting and therefore on topic for this site.

whiddershins 12y ago
Thanks, I really thought so. I found his statements about the personal echochamber effect to be particularly insightful. Although police giving coffee and hot chocolate to protestors reads like a light-hearted PR move, it raises interesting questions about why police and protestors are by default at odds, when they often have overlapping concerns and agendas.
- stefs 12y ago
  my thoughts exactly: policemen and -women are people and citizens too (with kids that probably wont grow to be police themselves), and citizens have an interest in upholding the law. it's NOT an us vs. them situation.
- MBCook 12y ago
  The only times I can think of police being involved in protests are because they (at least appear) to be non-neutral. When the police are the target of the protest, it's pretty easy for them to appear to be on one side of the issue. If the people of Ferguson think the police don't protect them it shouldn't be surprising that the protestors don't want to obey them. The only other incident that comes to mind is the WTO protests in Seattle years ago. I remember the people felt like the police were being used to squash legitimate protests and suppress speech. But I know other protests happen. The various fast food woke protests earlier this year would be an example. Most of the time the police are out doing stuff like stopping really rowdy people from escalating things and managing traffic. I'd imagine most of these kind of protests (large marches, etc.) are scheduled but even when they weren't the police weren't seen as intruding because they were perceived to be neutral. That neutrality makes a big difference. With it the police are there to help/protect the protestors and keep things safe. Without it the police can start to feel like a military force putting down rebellion. And a crowd is going to react very differently to those two things.
mcmancini 12y ago
Thank you for doing so, this was an enjoyable and interesting read that I probably wouldn't have found otherwise.
dubfan 12y ago
That's disappointing. I come to HN to get away from political discussions.
- wbronitsky 12y ago
  Then maybe you should not participate in them when they are here.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - akerl_ 12y ago
      Ok.
colinbartlett 12y ago
I appreciate that you check through all the flag-killed posts. Thanks for all the hard work!
anigbrowl 12y ago
Thanks. This was a very worthwhile read, both in terms of demonstrating that the concept of 'public service' still has its champions and as an example of how to thoughtfully express disagreement.

vertis 12y ago

Any time the police are forced to go arresting people for protesting they've failed a little bit. This is especially true when the protests are about police. Granted there are times when they are left with no choice, but if there is a strong relationship established between the protesters and the police, such that the protesters believe that the police understand their concerns, how much less likely does this become?

smtddr 12y ago
One could also argue that there was an earlier failure(s) of the system if people reach the point of having to protest to feel like they're being heard. So the protestors already see the police as yet another force trying to silence them which definitely strains that relationship. I think the issue here is that the protestors don't want to talk to police; they want to talk to the political/legal/social people in power to listen to their complaints. So the police are seen like a 3rd-party summoned by the people in power to stop the protestors and the situation is worse when the protests are about the police itself.
- jschwartzi 12y ago
  If the police were to start mass-arresting protesters, then that coupled with this situation could actually significantly reduce safety. Mobs are organic, and a single misunderstanding could easily lead to chaos.

MistahKoala 12y ago

If the letter received was representative of the 'fringe' 5%, I'm interested in how the other 90% read. It's quite anodyne, in my opinion.

rtpg 12y ago
I think his point is that the letters are coming from the 5%, where there's a silent majority. There's a silent majority that is probably frustrated by protests on the interstate, but arresting people for the "die ins"? I think most people agree that those protests are well within the freedom of assembly. Not many people write in to feel they are moderately satisfied with the way things are going, I would think.
codyb 12y ago
I'm going to assume that if it was representative of the 5%, it was of the 1% of that 5% who chose to position their thoughts in an eloquent and respectful manner. His reply is also an example of a positive, thoughtful, and respectful response to another's position. The letter was fruitful in that gave him much to espouse upon in his reply. In this way, it may just have been the perfect example for his community outreach. And I'd say it was an excellent choice.

jobu 12y ago

"It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts." I've heard this sentiment before, but never so well written.

JoelSutherland 12y ago
I love four sides as an alternative to both sides.
- codyb 12y ago
  One of my final professors in college taught us to ensure that when looking at a position to examine both sides of every side, and if we want to be very thorough, to look at both sides of both sides of either side. It's a lesson that has stuck well and has helped me maintain perspective in a wide variety of situations. The old adage (I believe from the ancient Asian philosophies of Taoism and Zen) "Think thrice before you speak, and then only speak if you have thrice concluded it is worth hearing" is another way to keep yourself in check at times. How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my thought process!
  - adamclayman 12y ago
    I admire this whole chain of thought. - ADC
  - rokhayakebe 12y ago
    How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my thought process Most Talking is the output of a reflex, whereas it should be the output of reasoning.

lizzard 12y ago

Perfectly pitched and perfectly constructed!

sriram_sun 12y ago

Here is another gem "It is somewhat perplexing when children are injected into the conversation as an attempt to bolster a position or as an attempt to thwart the position of another." I was hesitant to read this at first as it had nothing to do with programming. However, I am glad I did. I would recommend the HN community to read both the mail and the response. The response was well thought out, organized and calls out a few biases we carry around.

V7Theory 12y ago
http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/davidson-obama-guns.jpg http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/davidson...
- MBCook 12y ago
  Can you provide some context as to why you think this picture is a good example of using children as rhetoric instead of being a reasonable inclusion? For example if it was a bill to increase funding to elementary schools having the kids there for the photo-op seems fair. From the filename this seems to be on a gun bill, but I don't have enough information to understand your point (unless it's simply "Obama's done it", which is true of just about every politician).
  - JonathonW 12y ago
    The context: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/president-obama-announces-new-measures-prevent-gun-violence http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/president-obama-an... Yes, it was on a gun bill; the children are apparently kids who wrote the President letters regarding gun violence and school safety after the Sandy Hook school shootings.
  - stplsd 12y ago
    http://soundpolitics.com/Sotsrealizm.jpg http://soundpolitics.com/Sotsrealizm.jpg

smtddr 12y ago

Be sure to read the whole post, as well as the email chain below it. This was part of a complaint email sent to him: >>I wanted to send you this email to express my frustration and outrage at how the situation of these protesters is being handled in Nashville. The first night protesters marched here after the incidents in Ferguson they never should have been allowed to shut down the interstate. Instead of at least threatening to arrest them, they were served coffee and hot chocolate. This is how you deal with protests. Good job Nashville police; much respect. My own frustration lies with whoever sent this complaint.

sriram_sun 12y ago
Where are the email chains? I don't see any other emails on the tennessean's website.
- smtddr 12y ago
  Hmm, I the article linked here has 'em in my browser... http://i.imgur.com/oMBV6K5.png http://i.imgur.com/oMBV6K5.png
  - sriram_sun 12y ago
    I parsed "email chains" as emails in addition to the original complaint and the response.
    - smtddr 12y ago
      sorry, I removed the "s" from "email chains" now.

sfeng 12y ago

He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all support our right to protest in a peaceful way without fear of a disproportionate response by law enforcement. I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional. The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.

dubfan 12y ago
The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
- sfeng 12y ago
  > The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric. they also weren't killing people or 'inciting terror'.
- rtpg 12y ago
  so rights only exist until it becomes slightly inconvenient to people? There's a pretty easy slippery slope argument there. Are train drivers allowed to strike? Can the NYT publish articles revealing how terribly a company is run? Protesters are encouraged to coordinate with city officials so that people won't be "too inconvenienced", but last I checked it isn't a constitutional requirement.
  - dubfan 12y ago

V7Theory 12y ago

It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't, but to do so he has to completely ignore the fact that protesters were not just being heard, but shutting down major highways and disrupting people's efforts to enter the mall, this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. Sure, if you ignore that then yeah, the writer is a total dope.

MBCook 12y ago
> It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't I'm guessing the second 'he' refers to the letter writer and not the chief. It's a little unclear from the sentence. This seemed like a very well written and thoughtful rebuttal to some of the concerns in the letter. I didn't get a tone that it was showing the letter's author they weren't 'well adjusted'. > [..] this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. If the protesters in Tennessee weren't being violent/criminal, why compare them to the protests in some other cities? It was mentioned that the highways were kept open after the first night. Sounds like the whole thing went pretty peacefully. If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision.
- V7Theory 12y ago
  Your first assumption is correct, the chief was showing the letter writer that the letter writer wasn't well adjusted, but it looks like you figured that out. > why compare them to the protests in some other cities? You'd have to be intellectually dishonest to compare one to the other and not worry that they were the same. They were protesting the same thing and in a similar manner. While it hadn't escalated to the point of other protests, all other indications were there with no way of determining the stopping point of escalation. > If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision. Perhaps that may be true from the police officer's point of view but it doesn't offer any validation to citizens safety concerns. When we look at the incident from a standpoint of it being passed us, then it is only convenient to say that the police officers made the correct decision in allowing illegal acts, but it isn't necessarily true. The Problem with the chief's reply is that it ignores the citizens VALID safety concerns and then makes assumptions concerning the citizen's adjustment to society. If there had been no safety concerns, then the chief might have been justified in his assumption, but when the police force allows people to do large scale illegal acts that directly affect the lives of the people around them, then you can hardly say that concerns for safety aren't valid. So whether the citizen's concerns for safety are valid or not is the point that the article relies upon to justify the chief's response. I submit that the citizen's concerns for safety were valid, whether or not I would have felt the same (you have to "step out of your comfort zone" and try to avoid biases to understand that), and therefore the chief's reply was assuming and biased.

dchichkov 12y ago

"In the year 2013, our officers made over four hundred thousand vehicle stops, mostly for traffic violations. A citation was issued in only about one in six of those stops. Five of the six received warnings. This is the police exercising discretion for minor violations of the law. Few, if any, persons would argue that the police should have no discretion." Huh. Really? Warnings five out of six times? Is that pretty common?

HillRat 12y ago
Well, it's either an indication that the cops are engaging in aggressive profiling, or are remarkably free of pressure to write tickets. Surprisingly, the answer seems to be the latter -- Chief Anderson is an attorney who was legal counsel to the department's SWAT unit as well as a longtime Nashville cop, who appears to put great faith in building community-police relationships, and whose department has independently adopted stringent anti-profiling rules. Anderson also blew the whistle to Congress a few months ago on an attempt by Secret Service agents to mislead a suspect into believing they had a warrant. If the ACLU designed a supercop, it'd be this guy. Nashville -- who knew?
Retra 12y ago
Only one of the six times I've been pulled over have I been given a citation. In fact, only one out of 20 times that I speed near the police do I even get pulled over. This is an anecdotal and rough statistic, but in my experience the police are extremely lenient with traffic stops.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

femto 12y ago

> The police are merely a representative of a government formed by the people for the people—for all people Peelian Principles [1] explicitly say that the police force is not representing the government, as that's the job of the military. Firstly, the police force are citizens in uniform and part of the local community. The police are explicitly in place so the military can stay out of the community. Militarised police forces around the world would do well to keep in mind that they are making themselves redundant, since if the police are indistinguishable from the military, they might as well be done away with and replaced by the military. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

danbruc 12y ago
The word government is not the best choice, it should probably be state, not at last because governments come and go while the state stays. But in essence the statement is correct - policy and military enforce the laws on behalf of the citizens, the police to the inside of the state, the military to the outside.
- femto 12y ago
  I respectfully disagree with the military=outside, police=inside distinction. For example, nations use the military internally in times of emergency, with the imposition of martial law. Similarly, police delegations get sent overseas on UN missions. In my mind, the distinction is consent and source of authority. The military works by imposing rule, the definition of rule coming from a higher level. The police work by enforcing behaviour, as defined by the community they are policing. Granted that the definition of community is subjective. My argument is the definition of "community" should be the smallest one possible that allows a positive outcome in the current situation. For example in a noise complaint, the police could appeal to a sense of right, based on the expectations of people in the street. The law wouldn't even come into it, as that is something from "outside". Only if that's unsuccessful would the police have to broaden the definition of community to include statutes and external influences. ---- Edit: I'd also add that ultimately, the military is not bound by the law. Their final brief is "get the job done" and they will answer for war crimes if they stuff up.

KayEss 12y ago

When did the plural for "person" become "persons" instead of "people"? Is this just some weird Americanism, or is there a specific difference in police jargon?

dkokelley 12y ago
You seem to be correct in that law enforcement uses 'persons' over 'people' more often. [1] I'm not entirely sure where the distinction comes from, but language can be such a funny thing. [1] http://grammarist.com/usage/people-persons/ http://grammarist.com/usage/people-persons/
- KayEss 12y ago
  Strange how I'd never noticed "missing persons" as being an odd construct before. I guess I'd just heard it so often I wasn't really aware of how the phrase was constructed.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
HillRat 12y ago
It's a legal (or pseudo-legal) tic, based on a formal grammatical rule that "people" refers to a large mass (such as the "people of the United States"), and "persons" refers to a finite body of, er, people. Technically, the plural of "person" is "persons," not "people," as the two terms share distinct Latin roots: persona vs. populus, the former referring to a physical person, and the latter to a sociocultural grouping (e.g., SPQR -- Senatus Populusque Romanus, "the Senate and People of Rome"). But we are more likely these days to use "people" as the proper plural of "person," and generally only encounter "persons" in more formal contexts.
Retra 12y ago
I always took it to mean the same category of distinction made in biological categories. That is, 'people' means a simple plural person, where "persons" means a plural of person categories. Like 'fish' means multiple fish, but 'fishes' means multiple species of fish. Then saying 'these persons' would essentially mean 'these groups of different kinds of people.' (But that could also just be implicit regardless of your word choice.) But... you can also use 'person' to mean the body of a person, so that 'persons' could mean multiple bodies. "They carried the weapons on their persons," for instance. Akin to how 'mice' is the plural of the animal, but 'mouses' is the plural of the computer peripheral.

awjr 12y ago

His response email is exceptional: "As imperfect humans, we have a tendency to limit our association with other persons to those persons who are most like us. Unfortunately, there is even more of a human tendency to stay within our comfort zone by further narrowing those associations to those persons who share our thoughts and opinions. By doing this we can avoid giving consideration to thoughts and ideas different than our own. This would make us uncomfortable. By considering only the thoughts and ideas we are in agreement with, we stay in our comfort zone. Our own biases get reinforced and reflected back at us leaving no room for any opinion but our own. By doing this, we often convince ourselves that the majority of the world shares opinion and that anyone with another opinion is, obviously, wrong. It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."