Comment by lawnchair_larry | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lawnchair_larry | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lawnchair_larry

Aha, but the analogy that you made with those questions has a critical error. The correct analogy would be questions that read:

Is destruction of property what you expect from civilians?

Yes, sadly, 1% or less[1] of civilians are are going to be stupid and riot instead. And that is unacceptable.

Should they be reprimanded?

Absolutely. And we have specialized government entities that can utilize appropriate-force to reprimand them.

Is unwarranted destruction of property what you expect from police?

Yes, sadly, 1% or less[1] of police are going to be stupid and abusive. That is unacceptable, their job is to protect and serve. Even from each other.

Should they be reprimanded?

Yes! but we as civilians have no legal way to do this, and even the "good cops" have no good way to do this.

[1] We do not have data for either of these figures, so 1% is being used as a placeholder, and is not meant literally. I suspect that the percentage of criminals in the general population is far bigger than the number of police who destroy property for no reason, but I admit that I have no data for that.

And should reprimanded citizens continue to be citizens afterwards?

Yes, in almost all but the most extreme of cases. (And the people who make that determination are called "judges" not "cops".)

Should reprimanded cops continue to be cops?

No, in all but the most trivial and excusable cases. (And the people who make that determination should also be called judges not cops.)

If you get given a badge and a gun, and job that demand people to people to respect your authority, you not only get held to a higher standard than those of us without, but you also put your livelihood at stake if you choose to behave in a "stupid or abusive" manner.

It's abundantly clear to people outside the US that the cop who killed George Floyd needs to be fired and prosecuted for murder, the three cops who stood there and let him do it need to be fired and prosecuted for accessory to murder, and those four cops chain of command also needs to be investigated for culpability and almost certainly fired if not prosecuted as well. It seems unbelievable that some US citizens think otherwise. I expect that from cop unions, who've proven themselves time and time again to be completely devoid of humanity or morals, but find it unthinkable that anyone else can't see it clearly as evil thuggery from people who society has to demand better from. All four need to never be in any position of authority again. At least one of them needs to be in jail for life.

From what I can tell your only change was to add the word “unwarranted” before destruction.

Could you please help us understand your position on “Should abusive officers be reprimanded?”

And if we agree they should be reprimanded, what are your thought on how we build that system?

The system where we the civilians who witness or are victims of the abuse and other “good cops” who witness the abuse, can get legal ways to highlight and reprimand those few abusive police officers[0]?

[0] such that the person/people accusing (with evidence) the abusive police without worrying other police officers will “hold it against” the accuser.

He seems happy to accept that 1% (as a placeholder) of cops are murderers, and there's nothing we can do about that.

(He claimed that in the context of property damage, which hides the actual implications of that carelessness, because it wasn't police property damage that triggered this current unrest...)

I _strongly_ disagree. A cop committing assault or murder, while on the job, is a thing society needs to take great care does not happen. It's abhorrent to me to take a "shit happens" attitude to cop killings.

Parent said property damage, not me. So your uncharitable assumptions about my intentions are way off on that point. If you want to reframe the issue from property damage to killing unarmed civilians, take it up with the parent. We were talking about the video of the cop randomly smashing windows.

Not surprisingly, your straw man is just as bad. Nobody said or implied anything remotely close to a “shit happens” attitude. Did you just not read the next sentence or something?

You said "stupid and abusive". Not the sort of terminology usually used for "property damage".

And yeah, I read (and just reread) your next sentence, and it still reads as a "shit happens" attitude to me.

As I read it, you're saying there's nothing we can possibly do to ensure that rate of "stupid and abusive" cops is any lower than the rate of "stupid and rioting" civilians. (Or the most optimistic reading of it I can see is that you think we can't do any better a job of ensuring a lower rate of stupid and abusive cops than we have now.)

I think we need to do a _way_ better job of screening cop applicants before giving them a badge and gun, and hold them to a way higher standard that is currently the case.

You completely missed the point then and are absolutely wrong about what I said. Have a nice day.

Do you mind please responding to my most recent questions for you?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23398553

Thank you either way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com