Hacker News Reader

Precisely. The Police are keen to do little "viral" stunts like shooting hoops with kids or buying shoes for homeless guys (ok, fine things to do) ... but when it really comes down to stuff that actually matters - the countless killings and general misery they cause to minorities - they close ranks and put on a united front, and often have the audacity to play the victim.

This is why "ACAB" takes hold. They 100% get behind their shittiest members, effectively taking collective responsibility for them. I am really not sure what else they expect, really.

What’s ACAB?

It stands for "All Cops Are Bastards"

It stands for "All Cops Are Bastards", and is a common graffiti tag.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C.A.B.

"All Cops Are Bastards" - It's to do with all individual police officers, who could be perfectly moral upstanding citizens, being complicit with an institution that has done terrible things.

It's more of a reaction to the idea of changing an institution from the inside.

> general misery they cause to minorities

And also non-minorities. According to Scott Alexander the rate of killings per police encounter in the USA is similar for both black and white people.

> On any given day, in any police department in the nation, 15 percent of officers will do the right thing no matter what is happening. Fifteen percent of officers will abuse their authority at every opportunity. The remaining 70 percent could go either way depending on whom they are working with.

From I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer

I think it's a little strange they'd even chase someone over two belts and a shirt... I wonder if they knew he was armed, since it was shoplifting and not like a bank robbery, but escalated though from there anyways.

Just really surprised they'd prioritise such low value items. I know I've heard in some cities like San Francisco, the police are so busy with everything else even cars being broken into or stolen isn't even a high priority. So the police are pretty much useless and only good for just to get it documented for the insurance company. Then, of course, you have to pay for a copy of the police report, and some or maybe even most places won't even accept credit, debit or even checks. Exact change only. Ideally, though no one should steal at all and in the ideal world, everyone who stolen would be caught.

My first iPod Touch was stolen in high school, and the police took a report. I even thought I knew who did it... The officer even asked me if I'm sure I didn't misplace it or lose it, trying to blame me I guess. I kinda feel like corporations are more protected than everyday citizens sadly. Maybe a Walmart in a city will bring more income than a single person though is the logic.

The police aren't interested in investigating low-value cases. However, with a suspect in sight they'll go after them even if it's low-value.

Then why don't they investigate wage theft? Googling around suggests that the cost to the US economy is about the same as shoplifting (and I'm guessing individual cases could be much higher value than shoplifting). When was the last time a battering ram was used in pursuit of a wage thief? Or when was one even arrested?

To answer my own questions, police do not care so much about the "value" of the target. Their behavior is much easier to explain once you realize that their job is to protect capital.

Wage thieves don't flee. There's no adrenaline-pumping chase scene, nothing to tunnel-vision. It's also much harder to see on patrol.

I doubt it's the lack of adrenaline being the main driver for skirting away from "white collar" crime. More likely, the analytical and time consuming work required, and perpetrators who are much more likely to evade capture and/or sentencing, through usage of lawyers, accountants et al.

Also, the victims of wage theft are less likely to be "well connected" sponsors of political careers, while the victims of larceny are naturally more often business owners whom are more likely to have a "voice".

How much wage theft is treated as a criminal matter vs a civil matter?

Furthermore, cops aren't exactly skilled at digging out such things. Wage theft is something for the department of labor, not the cops.

My brother had his phone stolen years ago from a gym locker in middle school. The thief was identified within a day and the phone confiscated by police, who kept in in an “evidence” lockup.

We tried again and again to get the phone back but they refused. We had to buy a new one. As far as I’m concerned, those cops stole my brother’s phone.

> the suspect stole two belts and a shirt from a Walmart.

A petty thief who stole $50 worth of merchandise was armed with a gun. That's your problem and that's what led to the overreactions.

The new rules people seem to be advocating for is you can commit low level crimes and the police won’t follow you, as long as you carry a gun. Which is crazy. The cops did nothing wrong blowing up that house as long as they were willing to pay for it. If they can’t pay for it they should have stationed some cops to wait him out. But armed fugitives need to handled lest they murder someone.

Not sure it’s my writing or your reading comprehension lacking. Elsewhere with sane firearms control (most countries?), petty thieves don’t tend to carry guns. Americans like to beat around the bush when the single worst catalyst for tension is lying right there in plain sight.

Mexico just called, they said they made carrying a single bullet worth years in jail. Rumor has it they have a serious armed petty (and not so petty) crime problem.

To refute my point on U.S. gun control, you point me to a country whose gun violence is almost exclusively fueled by guns trafficked from the U.S. Really strong argument.

Citation needed, because I'm calling BS. The Mexican government used to send serial numbers of weapons suspected of originating in the US to the ATF, but stopped after nearly all of those weapons were determined to have been sales to the Mexican military.

Cartels are billion dollar enterprises with shipping connections all around the world, to believe they're getting their LAW's and M249's from Billy Bob's Country Emporium is beyond ridiculous.

Why do they deserve massive power? That was not constitutionally mandated, it is local, state, and national politics related to drugs and motor traffic that seems to have given cops now more violence and also more ubiquity. What if police didn't have outsized reactions to recreational drug use or minor non violent offenses? What if they weren't getting their revenue from seizing assets and catching motorists for arbitrary speed tickets?

> Why do they deserve massive power?

They don't. We've given it to them willingly.

It has been granted to them by every person who has chosen to "outsource" dealing with their problems to the police. Loud neighbor? Call the cops. Something doesn't look right at the house down the street? Call the cops. Someone breaking into your home? Call the cops.

As a society, many, many of us have forgotten how (or even why) we ought to fight, defend ourselves, or interact with society. So we call the cops and go back to our Netflix or whatever it is we are doing that we don't want to be bothered with.

If you have a loud neighbor you personally fight them? The problem here is not that police are carrying out violence that should be enacted by citizens. I think you have misunderstood the need for accountability, not self reliance when it comes to using force.

No, my point here is that a lot of people don't interact with their neighbors at all. I've had loud neighbors in the past and when I've had a problem gone directly to them and asked them to rectify said issue. They have generally complied.

The point is that if we were all better in "public relations" and de-escalation, we wouldn't need the cops at all. But if the default answer is just simply "call the cops" then people do feel attacked and they tend to get defensive.

If everybody was a first class citizen - sure, we don't need cops, but that is not the reality. It is easier to call the cops instead of doing "PR" with a chance for it to get physical and there are probably quite a lot of examples of just that.

Maybe because we want justice and not just whomever is more willing to escalate violence to win. Without the cops, any criminal interaction just becomes who’s willing to shoot first.

You speak of loud neighbors? In my town a guy was just murdered a few weeks ago over a long running feud about a loud dog. The two homeowners had tried to settle it many times by fighting until one brought a gun.

Except that when you call the cops, you are escalating the situation to include a potentially violent actor. You might want justice, but most people just want help. Multiple times I can name the cops have been called to help and have instead shot innocent people.

Why should I assume someone is a rational actor? Why should I take the risk? I pay taxes for professionals who have taken training on how to handle these situations to take that risk. You might live in some nice friendly suburb, but when I saw my neighbor and asked her very politely if there was something she could do about her dog barking all night, her husband came out and threatened violence if I ever talked to his wife again. The cops are here to deal with people like that.

I do not live in the suburbs. I live in Flatbush. It is my experience that the cops are there to represent the State and it is the right of the state to use violence. We hope they only do it when it's absolutely necessary, but we all know that's not what happens.

Sure, call the cops if you need to interact with a violent person. A better solution with neighbors is usually to build a relationship with them when you aren't needing their dog to stop barking, so that when you ask for a favor (which is what that is) they are more likely to grant it. Sometimes, they don't. What do you want the cops to do about it? Shoot the dog? Fine them? You still have your neighbor.

I like how you carefully place me at fault and make assumptions, instead of the whackadoodle. I was friends with him, I helped him cut a tree off his house and put up a fence. And no, it isn't asking a favor to stop their dog barking all night long, that's ridiculous. It's asking them to uphold their responsibilities as people living next to other people. I offhandedly asked his wife in passing if there was something they could do about their dog and he lost his frick'n mind.

And what do I want the cops to do about it? Issue a noise violation. Shockingly, laws are made to handle these sorts of things. We don't all have to take a baseball bat, or bake them cookies and suck up to our neighbors into taking care of their dogs.

I've had bad neighbors before. Did the cops issue a noise violation? Usually they don't, in my experience; you just end up with a pissed off neighbor and the cops tired of coming out there. Then you still have loud, annoying neighbors and they're even less friendly than they were before.

I'm not really saying baking cookies and sucking up to your neighbors - that's pretty negative way to characterize my 'treat people with respect and try to be friends before you ask for a favor.'

Seems like you are saying you did just that, and it didn't work out. That sucks. You went through the exact process I'm advocating. It doesn't mean that rather than talk to your neighbors you should just call the cops the next time a dog is barking, though.

The dominant group has not only outsourced the 'dealing' but also outsourced the externalities to minority groups.

I'm coming from the UK perspective, so our police are less trigger-happy and mostly unarmed but certainly have a very dark side. Historically was more likely that the black / Irish / gay / minority-du-jour person ended up lying at the bottom of the stairs in the police station than a straight white person. (Edit: originally phrased in present tense)

Maybe the dominant group would be less happy to outsource it if they or their parents had also been on the receiving end.

> It's more likely that the black / Irish / gay / minority-du-jour person ends up lying at the bottom of the stairs in the police station than a straight white person.

Do you have a source on this?

The idea that an arrested person is more likely to be injured in police custody if they are one of the listed minorities in the 21st century in the UK is very surprising to me.

There definitely are still problems with the relationship of the police to black communities, especially in London, but the available stats don't make a clear case for it and the overall number is quite small: https://fullfact.org/law/bame-deaths-police-uk/

That discusses deaths in custody. I would like to highlight a specific issue of shootings:

> BAME people have made up about one third of those shot by the police since 2004, according to a third set of figures from the Independent Police Complaints Commission. These suggest 8 people from black and minority ethnic communities died in police shootings from 2004/05 to 2015/16, out of a total of 27.

> About 14% of people in England and Wales identify as black or minority ethnic, as suggested by Kiri Kwankhende.

(Americans are invited to consider that figure of 27 deaths from police shootings over a decade...)

I'm thinking of the past (which is well known) when we constructed the norms on policing. Those examples are certainly drawn from the past 50 years. I could have expressed that better.

However, although I wasn't necessarily talking about the present day, we do have to look at the historical context. IMHO police forces such as the Met need to do a huge amount more to convince us that they've stopped.

And my point was really that whether someone was beaten up by the police or their parents were, they are much more likely to consider the downsides of getting on the wrong side of the police than someone who has never met anyone who was targeted.

Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot.

>> Wait what do you do when someone breaks into your house? Grab a bat and go fight them? That's an easy way to get stabbed or shot.

Right back at you. Do you seriously run away?

Is that your response to any situatuon that includes potential danger?

In a self defense scenario running away (if you have a clear and safe exit) is the best possible option. If someone is breaking into your house from the front, and you can safely exit the back - GTFO to safety and call law enforcement.

That being said, if your back is against the wall you have every right to defend yourself.

Depending in the jurisdiction, you might even have a legal obligation to try and get away as a top priority if you can avoid a potentially deadly confrontation.

While I agree, my main point was based on safety. If your primary objective is survival, the idea of grabbing a weapon _and_ moving towards danger is ludicrous (thanks media portrayal).

If you are in a life or death situation it might make sense to arm yourself and encroach, but if someone is breaking in your front door and you have access to an exit you are not yet in a life or death situation. Arm yourself and attempt to flee.

If you don't have homeowners/renters insurance, live alone, value your property over your life, and enjoy high risk life or death situations - then by all means charge on in. Just make sure you don't shoot your friend who you gave a key 8 months ago stumbling in from a night at the bar.

The you was italicized to indicate interest in what you would personally do.

I'm not asking for advice.

Well, I think I painted a pretty clear picture of what I would do.

Good luck with that.

That doesn't seem out of control. This man was firing at police. That warrants a SWAT response. You've got a very high risk of officers getting killed.

What is fucked up is that there's no law that requires the government to compensate the homeowner.

Maybe just let the guy run off with the clothes in the first place? The idea that we have to defend a corporation’s property rights at the level of a SWAT team having a street battle with a shoplifter is the height of militarized insanity.

Usually police don't even respond to shoplifting on that level. I'm not sure what happened here.

> This man was firing at police. That warrants a SWAT response.

Absolutely. And there is no reason they couldn't have cut utilities to the property, set up a perimeter, and waited him out.

One of the biggest problems with SWAT teams today is that they seem to feel that they have failed if they don't go in all-a-Rambo. Protocol should be just the opposite: the most successful missions are the ones where a cop never has to fire a gun.

Yeah, that would have been better, at least given what we know of the situation.

> starting to believe

When it is founded on hard evidence I think belief is not the right term to use.

> over a single armed man

Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast.

> The boy, who was home alone when the gunman entered, was able to get out of the house safely.

Not to mention the safety issues of firing tear gas into the building, blowing out the windows and driving an APC into it if he wasn’t already out…

Is it common for the police to resort to explosives and military vehicles to handle a single armed person? Or maybe they have just too much leftover military toys and are eager to play with them?

If your employer had an option available which could significantly reduce your risk of dying on the job, what would you prefer that they prioritise above taking that option?

A) The lives of bystanders

B) The property of bystanders

C) The cost of equipment

D) The aesthetics of equipment

Personally, say:

- Definitely A.

- B & C at some point if the cost/risk is above a certain amount...but what is that number?

- Never D.

I agree with the use of force since the robber was armed, but in the end refusing any compensation is an awful choice that also sends the wrong message: next time make an attempt to trade with the robber but don't call the police.

It is preposterous to suggest that every other option would have created more risk for the police.

The issue here is not one of giving the police protection, it is one of misuse (to put it mildly) of the equipment intended for that purpose.

Are they going to be held responsible for destroying the property?

You’re being pretty cavalier with the lives of the cops. Why shouldn’t they use armored vehicles to handle some asshole shooting at them and starting a firefight in a residential neighborhood?

But there wasn't a firefight except for the police bringing the guns on a guy who was hiding in a house. The police already have bulletproof armor, shields, etc. There was no need to destroy a third party's house.

> Who's firing at the police officers and is in the same building as an innocent bystander, 9 year old boy. Seriously, this situation could've easily gone much uglier than property damage really fast.

Yes, it could have. The cops could have shot the 9 year old boy.

I'm not sure how you can see a man with a gun shooting at people and think the solution is more men with guns shooting at people.