5 ms·

Huh, why don't criminals in Germany exploit this, always threaten confrontation and have their run of the city? EDIT: Granted there's a big difference between

Huh, why don't criminals in Germany exploit this, always threaten confrontation and have their run of the city? EDIT: Granted there's a big difference between trying to deescalate when possible and raiding a sleeping guy's apartment on bad info. EDIT 2: This was an honest question and I felt like I got good answers despite the downvoting. Big thanks to everyone who took it at face value or applied the principle of charity, rather than just assuming I'm some kind of disruptive monster. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html

maxxxxx 11y ago
Because the German cops are not push overs either. If somebody will attack them they will fight back. But by trying to deescalate first you set the tone for the interaction. Most of the recently published police violence in the US seems to come from really trivial situations, not from criminals. I watched the Sandra Bland video. The cop stops her for a trivial traffic violation (I often forget my turns signals too and I see a lot of people doing that too). She responds in an aggravated way. Instead of trying to defuse the situation he makes it worse by telling her to put out the cigarette. Why would you do that? This sounds like a pure ego-trip where the cop wants to assert his total dominance. He could have given her a ticket and just left.
- brownbat 11y ago
  Thanks, I really appreciate your response, that adds useful context to your earlier comment.
- pessimizer 11y ago
  > The cop stops her for a trivial traffic violation (I often forget my turns signals too and I see a lot of people doing that too). It's worse than that. The cop tailgates her, waiting for an excuse to pull her over. His excuse is that she fails to signal while switching lanes (to create some distance between them.) He was going to pull her over no matter what. This may have been a trivial situation for the cop, but for black people travelling out of state, it's a nightmare.
  - platz 11y ago
    She fails to stop at a stop sign at the beginning
    - gnoway 11y ago
      Edit: this is true, it is Bland's car turning right onto the thoroughfare as the officer drives away from his first stop. It doesn't appear that she comes to a full stop or that she is using her blinker when she turns. This is probably what caused the officer to actually pursue Bland so quickly after finishing his prior stop. This doesn't explain or justify any of the rest of the incident though.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 11y ago
  The Sandra Bland case is a study in dumb escalation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black http://www.salon.com/2015/07/24/is_this_your_car_like_sandra_bland_i_confronted_an_officer_who_pulled_me_over_for_driving_while_black/ http://www.salon.com/2015/07/24/is_this_your_car_like_sandra...
acdha 11y ago
Remember that the police have far more resources available. Once someone demonstrates that they're actually a threat, the police still have the option of applying superior force but they have far more options for controlling when and where that happens and ensuring that innocent bystanders aren't needlessly exposed. One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases, which seem to be becoming less common because it's not worth the safety risks in an urban environment and modern tech + resources make it unlikely that anyone can actually escape for that long. Sure, that'd make for a crappy movie but it's safer for everyone involved.
- ghufran_syed 11y ago
  "One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. If a civilian is injured during the chase, there's lots of dramatic footage for the prosecution lawyer to show the jury, before asking the officers in charge to answer under oath why they made the decisions they made. Sounds like pretty strong evidence in favor of mandatory police body-worn cameras, along with a right of citizens who are on the receiving end of a police encounter to obtain and review the footage. There's always the worry that the camera would be 'accidentally' turned off by the police, or that the footage would be lost if it showed anything embarrassing to the police, so to make them effective, you probably need a change in the law such that any discrepancy between the officer's version of events and the citizens is AUTOMATICALLY decided by judge/ jury in favor of the citizen if the 'mandatory' video footage is for some reason unavailable.
  - Evolved 11y ago
    "One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. If a civilian is injured during the chase, there's lots of dramatic footage for the prosecution lawyer to show the jury, before asking the officers in charge to answer under oath why they made the decisions they made. Sounds like pretty strong evidence in favor of mandatory police body-worn cameras, along with a right of citizens who are on the receiving end of a police encounter to obtain and review the footage. There's always the worry that the camera would be 'accidentally' turned off by the police, or that the footage would be lost if it showed anything embarrassing to the police, so to make them effective, you probably need a change in the law such that any discrepancy between the officer's version of events and the citizens is AUTOMATICALLY decided by judge/ jury in favor of the citizen if the 'mandatory' video footage is for some reason unavailable. I don't think automatically ruling in the civilian's favor is a good idea because as we all know, tech breaks sometimes. I'm quite certain the body cameras exceed the standard definition of durable goods but they, like any other complex electronics, are susceptible to shock, moisture, fatigue, etc. and can break. All it takes is a landmark case of cop vs. civilian where the camera legitimately broke but the cop was in the right yet cannot prove it and then their life is ruined if the case is automatically decided in the civilian's favor.

maxxxxx 11y ago

Because the German cops are not push overs either. If somebody will attack them they will fight back. But by trying to deescalate first you set the tone for the interaction. Most of the recently published police violence in the US seems to come from really trivial situations, not from criminals. I watched the Sandra Bland video. The cop stops her for a trivial traffic violation (I often forget my turns signals too and I see a lot of people doing that too). She responds in an aggravated way. Instead of trying to defuse the situation he makes it worse by telling her to put out the cigarette. Why would you do that? This sounds like a pure ego-trip where the cop wants to assert his total dominance. He could have given her a ticket and just left.

brownbat 11y ago
Thanks, I really appreciate your response, that adds useful context to your earlier comment.
pessimizer 11y ago
> The cop stops her for a trivial traffic violation (I often forget my turns signals too and I see a lot of people doing that too). It's worse than that. The cop tailgates her, waiting for an excuse to pull her over. His excuse is that she fails to signal while switching lanes (to create some distance between them.) He was going to pull her over no matter what. This may have been a trivial situation for the cop, but for black people travelling out of state, it's a nightmare.
- platz 11y ago
  She fails to stop at a stop sign at the beginning
  - gnoway 11y ago
    Edit: this is true, it is Bland's car turning right onto the thoroughfare as the officer drives away from his first stop. It doesn't appear that she comes to a full stop or that she is using her blinker when she turns. This is probably what caused the officer to actually pursue Bland so quickly after finishing his prior stop. This doesn't explain or justify any of the rest of the incident though.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 11y ago
The Sandra Bland case is a study in dumb escalation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black http://www.salon.com/2015/07/24/is_this_your_car_like_sandra_bland_i_confronted_an_officer_who_pulled_me_over_for_driving_while_black/ http://www.salon.com/2015/07/24/is_this_your_car_like_sandra...

acdha 11y ago

Remember that the police have far more resources available. Once someone demonstrates that they're actually a threat, the police still have the option of applying superior force but they have far more options for controlling when and where that happens and ensuring that innocent bystanders aren't needlessly exposed. One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases, which seem to be becoming less common because it's not worth the safety risks in an urban environment and modern tech + resources make it unlikely that anyone can actually escape for that long. Sure, that'd make for a crappy movie but it's safer for everyone involved.

ghufran_syed 11y ago
"One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. If a civilian is injured during the chase, there's lots of dramatic footage for the prosecution lawyer to show the jury, before asking the officers in charge to answer under oath why they made the decisions they made. Sounds like pretty strong evidence in favor of mandatory police body-worn cameras, along with a right of citizens who are on the receiving end of a police encounter to obtain and review the footage. There's always the worry that the camera would be 'accidentally' turned off by the police, or that the footage would be lost if it showed anything embarrassing to the police, so to make them effective, you probably need a change in the law such that any discrepancy between the officer's version of events and the citizens is AUTOMATICALLY decided by judge/ jury in favor of the citizen if the 'mandatory' video footage is for some reason unavailable.
- Evolved 11y ago
  "One example where the U.S. seems to be getting it right is high-speed chases" If true, that may be because they are usually video recorded by news channels. If a civilian is injured during the chase, there's lots of dramatic footage for the prosecution lawyer to show the jury, before asking the officers in charge to answer under oath why they made the decisions they made. Sounds like pretty strong evidence in favor of mandatory police body-worn cameras, along with a right of citizens who are on the receiving end of a police encounter to obtain and review the footage. There's always the worry that the camera would be 'accidentally' turned off by the police, or that the footage would be lost if it showed anything embarrassing to the police, so to make them effective, you probably need a change in the law such that any discrepancy between the officer's version of events and the citizens is AUTOMATICALLY decided by judge/ jury in favor of the citizen if the 'mandatory' video footage is for some reason unavailable. I don't think automatically ruling in the civilian's favor is a good idea because as we all know, tech breaks sometimes. I'm quite certain the body cameras exceed the standard definition of durable goods but they, like any other complex electronics, are susceptible to shock, moisture, fatigue, etc. and can break. All it takes is a landmark case of cop vs. civilian where the camera legitimately broke but the cop was in the right yet cannot prove it and then their life is ruined if the case is automatically decided in the civilian's favor.