6 ms·
It's dangerous to bandy around statements like "most cops are good cops" for which you don't have evidence. Instead, you might say "Some cops are good cops".
by gkop 12y ago
It's dangerous to bandy around statements like "most cops are good cops" for which you don't have evidence. Instead, you might say "Some cops are good cops".
- mikeash 12y agoHow is it "dangerous"? I'm expressing my personal opinion on a relatively obscure site on the internet. It is one of the least dangerous activities I can imagine.
- gkop 12y agoYour argument does not rest on most cops being good cops, it stands if some cops are good cops. So why throw in an assertion you can't back up?
- timv 12y agoYou asserted that it was "dangerous" for him to bandy around such statements. Care to back up that assertion? "Unnecessary" and "dangerous" are quite different.
- sooheon 12y agoThe very blog post which prompted this discussion explains the danger of assuming even impartial investigative intentions of cops, let alone "good" ones.
- baddox 12y agoThe word "dangerous" is not exclusively used to indicate the likelihood of physical injury. It is also widely used to describe the likelihood of any undesirable consequences. The undesirable consequence in this case is a weakening of the argument being presented.
- stonemetal 12y agoHow does it weaken the argument? No one has put forth the idea that it is ok to talk to good cops. Don't talk to cops good, bad, or indifferent in nature.
- dropit_sphere 12y agoOh but he can. See, he's not holding himself to your standard of evidence. That would require mass mindreading, plus the ability to irrevocably demonstrate the authenticity of such. Rather, he's backing up that statement with evidence in the reader's head, counting on most readers to reflect back on their life experience and see if his statement fits. He has faith that it will. In my case, it does: I agree. I'll even upvote him.
- mikeash 12y agoBecause this is an informal conversation, not some nitpicky debate society. Somebody asked a question and I gave my opinion as a response.
- gkop 12y agotimv: the OP is warning people to avoid talking to cops. "Most cops are good" is a very common sentiment that is even inculcated in kids growing up attending public schools. This widespread common belief contributes to people speaking naively to police and thereby getting themselves in trouble. That is what I meant by dangerous. I didn't explain this in my reply to mikeash because it seemed to me that mikeash was being obtuse given the context of the OP. Edit in reply to rosser: I agree with you there.
- rosser 12y agoThe good cop:bad cop ratio is utterly orthogonal to whether or not it's a terrible idea to talk to them without a lawyer present. They still have to do their jobs, and if you say something in the course of speaking with them that furthers their investigation, directly or indirectly, they're kinda obligated to pursue it. Even if they're the nicest person you've ever met.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rhizome 12y agoCan we agree that it's an assertion in advance of facts?
- mellavora 12y agoStrong disagreement. If we are going to get real reform, we need the police to also buy in. Alienating them doesn't help. The drive to consider oneself a "good person" is fundamental to human nature (yes, psychopathy is a pathology). The issue is that "good" is socially defined. LEOs operate in a very odd social space. How do we get LEOs to want to align more with a more civil social space? This is the nut we need to crack.