Hacker News Reader

Comment by syzarian | Hacker News Reader

This has happened in Minneapolis. Since George Floyd police in Minneapolis have effectively stopped doing their job. When one of their own is treated by the law like anyone else would be they retaliate by refusing to work. Police feel entitled to be free of genuine consequence for their actions. For example, police commit more domestic violence on average than non-police and rarely get arrested for it.

View on HN

Seem that such corruption starts very innocuously. I remember police officer acquaintances saying being a cop means you can always use that fact to never get a speeding ticket. I never felt that they were shady people I think they are likely decent people with a difficult job, but something about that fact did sort of bothered me. I would like to think that a police officer driving very dangerously or even drunk would not being to get away with it that easily.

There was a famous ghost rider in the cannonballs in the 70s or 80s', which would always win the race and never stay to socialise.

After a few years of having retired, he came out being a cop.

This would probably be a lot more rare if the Camden NJ option of "fire and replace the whole department" were invoked for underperformance and/or corruption.

Also politicians pass laws that citizens need to abide —they have specific carve outs for themselves allowing them to skirt laws (such as trading on insider information for members of Congress).

Or government-sponsored healthcare.

But no #M4A for the proles, because that's SOCIALISM.

When they are treated like anyone else i.e. people who do not enforce the law they act like anyone else i.e. don't enforce the law, why would you expect anything else?

because they took the job

They took a job that had different conditions. It used to be that the police could arrest people and use force (why everyone else could not).

One should expect to live in a society in which police are not immune from breaking the law. When they mete out non judicial punishment then they should be held accountable for it in the same way I would be held accountable.

Depends on one's definition of punishment. I for one don't consider any use of force to be a punishment. The police's use of force to apprehend a suspect in crime or to prevent a crime in progress is not a punishment, IMHO. I'd rather live in a society that agrees with this so I don't live in SF or Minneapolis.

Obviously no one is saying force should never be utilized by the police. Are you unable to understand or imagine a police force functioning in such a way that they use reasonable force to apprehend suspects and don’t beat with impunity those that are already in custody? Police in Minneapolis murdered a suspect and the response to the offending officers being convicted by a jury was to stop doing their job and you appear think this is a reasonable response.

It is disheartening that you appear to be so willing to go along with with whatever police do all in the name of safety. Do you really view the world in such a way that you can’t comprehend having a police force that does it’s job without beating suspects who are already in custody?

Obviously we are listening to different people because people say just that in this very same thread. Also I don't see Escadrones de la Muerte being a problem in Minneapolis or anywhere in the US for that matter, so what extrajudicial punishment you are taking about if you don't mind my asking?

Can you point who said in this thread that police should never use force?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/2/3/22263444/new-chicago-p...

Note that Burge was arrested for lying to a jury during a civil lawsuit not for torture.

It appears to be you, who claimed that the police actions should be judged just like everyone else's here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35452473 Everyone else cannot really use force to arrest suspects and using force to prevent crime in progress is a very complicated matter for regular citizens too.

You do have a capacity for missing the point and context. The “this” in my first sentence referred to what someone said. Specifically police pulling back when challenged. No reasonable person thinks police should never use force and no one is declaring otherwise. Police doing illegal things with impunity is what people are decrying. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

> Everyone else cannot really use force to arrest suspects and using force to prevent crime in progress is a very complicated matter for regular citizens too.

In most states, anybody can use force to arrest criminals,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_arrest#United_Stat...

Of course the devil is in the details. I wouldn't risk my own neck by attempting a citizens arrest in a place like SF, because I think the prosecutors/etc there would be more interested in making an example out of me for daring to care, than punishing the actual criminal. Evidently the police of SF feel similar.

"suspects" != "criminals". And we had just recently seen what happened to a gentleman who merely filmed such an arrest[1] of such a suspect, have not we? So yes, technically you can use force and do a citizen arrest if you don't care about consequences.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Peop...

You can do a citizens arrest if you're quite sure you're in the right.

Actually, one should expect to live in a society where you do not get randomly stabbed and die in the street. This means that the spirit of law should reflect the necessity that arresting criminals gets higher priority than prosecuting cops.

In fact, by treating the two as the same, you commit a deep injustice, because a violent action does not get judged the same as its violent reaction.

This means that the spirit of law should reflect the necessity that arresting criminals gets higher priority than prosecuting cops.

I don’t think you understand the implications of what you just wrote. I thank you for stating this because it means we are in complete agreement. When a cop breaks the law they are in fact a criminal and, as you just stated, prosecuting criminals gets a high priority.

We agree. Criminals ought to be prosecuted. I’m glad you are in favor of prosecuting police who break the law.

Ah yes, "I had an expectation that I could beat the hell out of people with no consequence when there was no call for violence." defense.

No one is complaining when a cop uses force, they are complaining when a cop goes out of their way to murder, torture, and beat the shit out of normal citizenry who often put up little to no fight.

They are complaining about when the cops drop flashbangs into baby's cribs and getting no charges. https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/us/georgia-toddler-stun-grena...

If this is the conditions the police would like to return to, they should all go to jail.

> If this is the conditions the police would like to return to, they should all go to jail.

What a totally normal democratic thing to say.

Obviously it was hyperbole. Instead of addressing the essence of the point made you counter with this. Your response says much about how strong the argument you responded to is.

I'm not going to apologize that they're no longer allowed to beat and murder people with impunity...as much/as frequently/as blatantly.

So there's a tradeoff. Are you saying you would rather live in a high crime state, with tech founders being stabbed to death, than let them have their way?

It should be expected to have a police force that enforces the laws while not allowing police to mete out non judicial punishment. It’s possible for police to do their job without needing to beat whomever they want, whenever they want, without fear of prosecution.

then do it. Will you and other citizens get in uniform?

In case you aren’t aware, people can only hold a couple of jobs and one time and it’s ok for them to critique policies and actions of people in jobs they don’t have or ever intend to have. I can criticize a politician’s performance even though I don’t ever intend to become one. There is nothing illogical or hypocritical about this.

in a democracy, if you point the finger at something and come to a bad conclusion, and then demand a ridiculous, unworkable solution, it is my duty as a fellow citizen to inform you and other voters that you are extremely wrong! That's what I'm trying to do. There's actually no super policeman hiding out there that can do what you say, and guarantee that across a population of over 300 million people there will never be violent interactions between the police and the citizenry. It is insane to suggest that.

No one sugested any policies at all. Maybe my fellow citizen could attend some reading comprehension classes before criticizing other citizens?

Clearly you are incapable of a reasoned, nuanced discussion on this topic. You should try reading what has been written dispassionately. No is suggesting that there should never be a violent interaction between police and suspects. Clearly the discussion at had deals with police doing things like torturing suspects (read about Chicago police and death penalty cases there), and beating apprehended and subdued suspects.

You are taking what is written and applying an interpretation that clearly is not intended or made. You act as if those wanting reform seek out the most extreme, nonsensical standards. You are unreasonable in your responses. I hope for you that you may one day learn and understand logic and nuance.

The Supreme Court agreed that police departments can go out of their way to only hire stupid people, and refuse to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...

This isn't just limited to intelligence. Police departments will not hire people who will do the job properly, and they'll force out the people who maintain high ethics. That's why people say there's a systemic issue with policing in this country.

That is plain wrong. From your article the rationale for the police department was the following:

> New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

This is visibly not about "refusing to hire people who are smart enough to do the job well", but

> a rational way to reduce job turnover

Furthermore, since they interviewed only people who score higher than 20, where 21 is said to be equivalent to an IQ of 104, then those aren't stupid people.

Finally, I will say that the conspiracy theory that police departments are pro-crime and try do their best to do their job the wrong way seems out of touch with reality.

A great many police are not anti-crime when it comes to one of their own. For instance, police engage in domestic violence at a higher rate than the general population and are rarely arrested for it. Police violence, and we are talking about excessive violence, is well documented and so is the fact that they rarely go to jail for it. We are talking about police committing crimes and not violence committed lawfully while doing their job.

Qualified Immunity needs to go.

> It should be expected to have a police force that enforces the laws while not allowing police to mete out non judicial punishment.

This is, actually, completely impossible. A very simple example: an active shooter situation requires an immediate non judicial punishment. Therefore, the laws need explicit carve-outs for cops.

I apologize. Replace non judicial with illegal. As I wrote non judicial I was thinking of situations like beating a suspect already in custody.

Good, I agree. Then you may also agree that your original statement

> When one of their own is treated by the law like anyone else would be they retaliate by refusing to work

was incorrect: if you were going to be arrested for killing an active shooter, then you would not do it. And it would be wrong to charaterize this as a retaliation, as it is a rational decision.

You are good at missing the point. Clearly what is being talked about are things like beating suspects after they are in custody. We are not talking about justified use of force that police are legally allowed to do. If I was filed beating a handcuffed person I’d be arrested and prosecuted. The same does not usually apply to police.

Please read what is written in the context it is written in.

> Clearly what is being talked about are things like beating suspects after they are in custody.

Pure invention, if you want to restrain your context then use precise language not a large variety of hyperboles like "It’s possible for police to do their job without needing to beat whomever they want, whenever they want."

In the end, I will sum up this discussion from my POV: you view cops broadly as criminals waiting to get caught (they are domestic abusers after all!) and if I were one I would never want to police your neighborhood.

I suspect this all comes from you living a sheltered life, and because your view of police and, especially, of criminals is informed by TV shows. And yes, "gotcha!", those aren't the same, no matter how many screenwriters enjoy subverting expectations.

It's quite clear to me that the application of your ideas has given this headline, so I'm comfortable ending this discussion on this note: I hope that your anti-cop views are eliminated ASAP through the voting booth.

Is that really the choice? Let police have their way with the public or live with rampant crime?

what's your solution? Get out a whip???

Fire them all and hire replacements

They did that in Camden I believe. You got less crime ("I was right!" you say) and more complaints about police violence, more altercations ("Oh no! I wasted 10 years!" says you if you tried it). It turns out that freshman police are really gung ho and more likely to chase criminals down and beat them up, while veterans are more likely to sit back and wait for backup. If your problem was the police acting violent with impunity, then this doesn't solve the problem. You can punish them, and then you are at square one again.

“A tradeoff” is certainly a strange way of phrasing it. It could also be said that they’re holding hostage the safety of the public in order to get their way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com