Jump to content

Reforming police, the Blue Wall of Silence


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

As an unsophisticated member of the Minnesota/Twin Cities populace, I remember the days of 2015 when other parts of the country struggled with police violence and racial profiling and I hoped that in Minnesota that would not come up.  We are Nice.  We respect the law and the police, the police don't want to kill anybody.

Surely our law enforcement would take a lesson from broader case studies and be extra careful not to create such a dynamic here.

But here we are and we have back-to-back cases of completely unjustified execution of civilians by police.  Life has taken a turn for the surreal.  We are in an episode of South Park where all they have to do is say "she's coming right for us!" and it is suddenly OK to kill.

Recently I had probable cause to summon the police and I weighed the cost/benefit.  Laws were broken but my life was not in danger.  Bringing the police into it seemed a greater risk than letting the crime slide by.  I can't speak for anyone else but I can no longer look on the police as people who are sworn to protect me.  They are sworn to protect themselves at any cost.

Now we have to protect ourselves from the criminals and the police and that is fucked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2017 at 1:12 PM, Swordfish said:

It's an issue, but it's pretty easily solved.  There are ways to redact video evidence just like there are with other kinds of evidence.  I don't find that argument particularly compelling.

If the private information gets leaked, then there should be accountability for not protecting that information, just like there is with many other professions.

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, litechick said:

Recently I had probable cause to summon the police and I weighed the cost/benefit.  Laws were broken but my life was not in danger.  Bringing the police into it seemed a greater risk than letting the crime slide by.  I can't speak for anyone else but I can no longer look on the police as people who are sworn to protect me.  They are sworn to protect themselves at any cost.

Now we have to protect ourselves from the criminals and the police and that is fucked up.

I am also a Twin Cities resident and I was dealing with something similar, I had that thought too, which is a shame.  I also have clients wanting to redraft certain crisis plans because "calling the police" seems much more daunting.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2017 at 3:22 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

I had that thought too

Thank you Guy.  It is reassuring that someone else sees it.

At the core, I still believe that 95% of police are true and honorable and willing to protect and serve.  Nevertheless, since I know that some will kill on the thinnest pretext and suffer no consequences, I can no longer grant the benefit of the doubt when my life is on the line.

From now on I have to assume that any armed police officer may kill me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2017 at 0:30 AM, litechick said:

Thank you Guy.  It is reassuring that someone else sees it.

At the core, I still believe that 95% of police are true and honorable and willing to protect and serve.  Nevertheless, since I know that some will kill on the thinnest pretext and suffer no consequences, I can no longer grant the benefit of the doubt when my life is on the line.

From now on I have to assume that any armed police officer may kill me.

I am really at the same point.  95% of the police are great and normal people, but, now, there is a reality that I could be killed in an interaction with a police officer; that or someone I care about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guy Kilmore said:

I am really at the same point.  95% of the police are great and normal people, but, now, there is a reality that I could be killed in an interaction with a police officer; that or someone I care about.  

Maybe 95% of them aren't actively abusing their power, but a great number of them are enabling the said 5% that are, so many of the so called "good cops" are still a significant part of the problem. And until they start holding the 5% accountable, progress cannot be made. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe 95% of them aren't actively abusing their power, but a great number of them are enabling the said 5% that are, so many of the so called "good cops" are still a significant part of the problem. And until they start holding the 5% accountable, progress cannot be made. 

Alternately, take a 20-sided die. Roll it. On a 1, you have a chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all

And apparently this system is entirely acceptable to most everyone, and some will even apologize or blame you for rolling that 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, take a 20-sided die. Roll it. On a 1, you have a chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all

And apparently this system is entirely acceptable to most everyone, and some will even apologize or blame you for rolling that 1. 

Man those Charisma checks just got real important; I knew I should have rolled a Halfling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Alternately, take a 20-sided die. Roll it. On a 1, you have a chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all

 

The notion that we have a 1 in 20 chance of being killed by a cop is an astonishingly  absurd exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The notion that we have a 1 in 20 chance of being killed by a cop is an astonishingly  absurd exaggeration.

You're quibbling about the percentages.  It may be an exaggeration but that's not the point.  

There is a real possibility that anyone could be killed by an officer because the officer is having a bad day an over-reacts to a harmless movement you make.  I strongly suspect that that likelihood increases if the person stopped by the officer is black.  

That said the notion that people will blame the victim when the victim did nothing wrong but was shot by a police officer is not an exaggeration.  Clearly people will always find a reason to offer apologia for police shootings even when the person shot has done nothing wrong.  That, is well established.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

The notion that we have a 1 in 20 chance of being killed by a cop is an astonishingly  absurd exaggeration.

Good thing I didn't say that, right? Glad you agree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Good thing I didn't say that, right? Glad you agree with me.

I didn't say you said it.  But you certaibnly implied it.  Otherwise, what was the point of your dice analogy?

Quote

ou're quibbling about the percentages.  It may be an exaggeration but that's not the point.  

There is a real possibility that anyone could be killed by an officer because the officer is having a bad day an over-reacts to a harmless movement you make.  I strongly suspect that that likelihood increases if the person stopped by the officer is black.  
 

Sure.  Never the less, honest discussion requires actual perspective, not exaggeration and hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I didn't say you said it.  But you certaibnly implied it.  Otherwise, what was the point of your dice analogy?

Try reading what I wrote again and see if you can figure it out. 

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Sure.  Never the less, honest discussion requires actual perspective, not exaggeration and hyperbole.

It also requires reading comprehension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Try reading what I wrote again and see if you can figure it out. 

It also requires reading comprehension.

Ha.  Ad hominem.  Easier than simply admitting you were wrong I gueess.

Either way, Your post here contains too high a sodium content for me.  

Carry on......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ha.  Ad hominem.  Easier than simply admitting you were wrong I gueess.

Either way, Your post here contains too high a sodium content for me.  

Carry on......

Okay, I'll try again. It isn't ad hominem; you simply didn't comprehend what I wrote, and then doubled down. That isn't an attack on you; that's an observation that continues to have credence.

Again, I wrote very specifically that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all I put that part in italics, even! I did it again! Here, does  this help?

you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all

Does that put the proper emphasis on the right syllable?

I did not just say that you had a 1 in 20 chance of dying. That's ridiculous and unsupported. I said that if you roll a 1 - if you run into that 5% of cops that are horrible - that you have a chance of dying for doing nothing wrong. 

And - here was the really important thing - that this is apparently perfectly fine with most people. (Again, let's see if the emphasis works). It's especially perfectly fine with the rest of the police, given the lack of reporting of these issues and especially the lack of actual successful prosecution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Okay, I'll try again. It isn't ad hominem; you simply didn't comprehend what I wrote, and then doubled down. That isn't an attack on you; that's an observation that continues to have credence.

Again, I wrote very specifically that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all I put that part in italics, even! I did it again! Here, does  this help?you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying for doing nothing wrong at all

Um.  Yes.  That's exactly the point I specifically responded to, which you then claimed you didn't make.  So maybe there IS a reading comprehension issue here after all? *shrug*

Anyway, just for fun, go ahead and site your sources for those numbers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Um.  Yes.  That's exactly the point I specifically responded to, which you then claimed you didn't make.  So maybe there IS a reading comprehension issue here after all? *shrug*

Again, didn't say that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying. I still didn't. I guess I could put it in a way that doesn't trigger you so badly - that every time you have an encounter with a police officer you have a 1 in 20 chance that the police officer will do something that is completely against the law and violates your rights, and for no reason other than they believe they can, with you doing nothing at all to provoke it. 

Is that better?

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Anyway, just for fun, go ahead and site your sources for those numbers.

What numbers? The 95%? I was just using what was stated before; ask someone else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, didn't say that you have a 1 in 20 chance of dying. I still didn't. I guess I could put it in a way that doesn't trigger you so badly - that every time you have an encounter with a police officer you have a 1 in 20 chance that the police officer will do something that is completely against the law and violates your rights, and for no reason other than they believe they can, with you doing nothing at all to provoke it. 

Is that better?

It would be if you provided citations for those numbers.  Otherwise no, it isn't.

Really, you've just INCREASED the chances here, because you've taken out the '5% of police officers' part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

It would be if you provided citations for those numbers.  Otherwise no, it isn't.

Again, I was just using what was provided. Someone else can provide citations. If you care, cite something that shows otherwise.

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Really, you've just INCREASED the chances here, because you've taken out the '5% of police officers' part.

I don't see how I've increased the chances. 5% is 1 in 20. I guess we could argue about whether or not bad police are more or less likely to be encountered or what the distribution of bad police is, but me saying 1 in 20 vs. saying 95% vs 5% does not increase or decrease anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, I was just using what was provided. Someone else can provide citations. If you care, cite something that shows otherwise.

 

Ha.  Uh...  No.  That isn't how this works.  If you're making a claim, it's reasonable to back it up with something.

If you're just making those numbers up, that's cool to, but that makes the claim pretty meaningless.

Quote

I don't see how I've increased the chances. 5% is 1 in 20. I guess we could argue about whether or not bad police are more or less likely to be encountered or what the distribution of bad police is, but me saying 1 in 20 vs. saying 95% vs 5% does not increase or decrease anything.

It's pretty simple, really.  Saying this:

'Your chances of having your rights violated when being stopped by a cop are 1 in 20' 

is implying a MUCH higher probability than saying:

'Your likelihood of having your rights violated is one in 20 if you are stopped by one of the 5% of police who are bad apples'.

 

I mean, I suppose it's possible that 5% of police violate the rights of EVERY person they interact with, but since these numbers are all made up anyway, we are sort of well into the territory of absurdity anyway.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...