Comment by ndarilek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ndarilek | Hacker News Reader

I have a hard time swallowing police department rhetoric in these situations. The officer has a gun, and the unfortunate power to make "extra-legal" killings with it. They're safe. If they irresponsibly use that gun in an unsafe manner, like all the drunken NYPD officers who shoot people[0], then it absolutely is our or someone's responsibility to take matters into our own hands and monitor ourselves until we see that accountability. Relying on internal affairs/review commissions to provide that is a broken model.

Also, I know folks doing this locally, and have watched officers request that filmers stand at a safe distance. It's interesting to me how often "safe distance" corresponds with a) somewhere with a shitty view far away and b) a position where the filmer is significantly further away than a number of pedestrians or gawkers whose "safety" presumably isn't in dispute. I have good friends who were arrested for nothing more than filming, and they were often given confusing and contradictory orders by an officer who obviously felt he had the immediate situation well enough in hand to direct most of his attention ordering the filmer around. It happened almost 2 years ago, no charges were filed, and if this was a legitimate concern then I'd really like to see some obstruction charges brought in the several local cases I've seen of citizens arrested for filming.

I do agree that some of these groups' strategies are a bit busted. I'm familiar with the Peaceful Streets Project here in Austin, and sometimes the ragey/personal rhetoric got a bit overpowering. Then again, cops kill people, often under suspicious circumstances, and get away with it. Perhaps it is time for a bit of rage, and to make it personal.

0. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/01/brendan-conin-nypd-...

> I have a hard time swallowing police department rhetoric in these situations. The officer has a gun, and the unfortunate power to make "extra-legal" killings with it. They're safe.

Suppose that atleast a few of the police are not the bloodthirsty crazies depicted on reddit, and actually have the best interests of their fellow citizens in mind. You might also suppose that even those people might get paranoid about some guy following them around in a car and pointing stuff at them, because merely having a gun and the ability to use it doesn't automatically make you 'safe'.

Putting two and two together, you'd conclude that this article has nothing to do with hacker news and flag it.

You folks can downvote all you want, but it doesn't change anything. I value a hacker news free of politics and current events far more than I value 'karma' points.

Hacker News is a bag full of stupid on political topics.

...what else do you expect? HN is full of young idealists convinced they both understand and can change the world. In the realm of computer software where most have spent their lives, they could be right. In other areas ... not so much.

It's incredibly difficult to fix what you don't understand, and most of the world doesn't understand politics. Especially young people. Most especially young people who have dedicated all their time and energy to something that isn't politics.

Then you might suppose those good cops might stand up when one of their buddy bad cops kills unarmed people or does something equally wrong. And you might suppose that, while silence doesn't imply consent, that maybe it implies something a bit more serious in a profession where people can kill with impunity and get put on paid leave while the situation is sorted out. You might suppose that maybe those good cops should publicly speak out when their departments do something bad. If they don't, you might suppose that their primary interest is in saving their jobs, our lives be damned.

I don't think reality is as clear cut as that. There is genuine complexity. Being a cop is legitimately dangerous, gun or no gun. A gun isn't an off switch. People can confront an armed cop and shooting doesn't always stop them.

There are also all sorts of rules that are learned on the job and aren't not in any manual. Ways for maintaining control and authority mostly. Many of these practices are unsanctioned and unofficial, but still essential for being able to do the job. Some things are both crucial and illegal.

Cops usually feel like when they get busted for being arrogant, bullying or outright violence that they are are victims of these situations. They do what everyone does, what has to be done for policing to be viable. Those pencil pushers with their removed perspective are making judgments about their irrelevant rules being broken.

They are under stress. Violence is a part of their days. Most of the people they deal with are lowlifes, lyres, cheaters. There is real stress. Real danger

That said, a lot of these practices aren't benign and they aren't inevitable. The police does genuinely attract many problematic people and it makes other. They get used to defending their authority and meet challenges to it with extreme responses. They develop a cops & robbers, us & them worldview that becomes their reality. More specifically cops, criminals and naive spectators, citizens & bureaucrats.

They develop a bullying mannerism.

Police manage to do their jobs without guns at all in many places. They deal with violent crime just like cops in the states. I'm not saying this should be adopted by US department, but is proof that there are other ways of doing things.

I think lights good for the paradigm. But, whatever that light reveals needs to be dealt with. Maybe police modus operandi needs to changed. But, maybe the rulebook needs to change too. It can be dangerous trying to enforce the official rulebook after long periods where it has only been enforced selectively. Maybe the official way of doing things doesn't work.

That said, this following cops around only plays to the problem paradigm. It's harassment, like what paparazzi do. It's belligerent. Maybe it's valuable as a protest, but it isn't as solution.

What I think should happen in law enforcement is that everything should be recorded. Every interrogation. Every arrest. Every time a cop pulls you over. This is all evidence and it should be part of every booking.

Hopefully that will make the need for this sort of thing go away.

What I think should happen in law enforcement is that everything should be recorded.

We can expect that pretty soon with storage and chips becoming ever smaller. 10-15 years perhaps?

There are existing commercial products.

Taser makes several:

http://www.taser.com/products/on-officer-video/axon-flex-on-...

I guess whether those meet every possible definition of 'everything' is something that can be argued about.

>> Some things are both crucial and illegal.

Well that's where I draw the line though. If it comes down to a choice between accepting that law enforcement is allowed to break the law or making law enforcement less effective by increasing transparency, I choose to decrease law enforcement effectiveness. I'd rather citizens undermine the police by recording them then have citizens get shot without cause with little oversight.

>> What I think should happen in law enforcement is that everything should be recorded.

I agree. I would hope that in these "discussions" they're having with these groups to reach a compromise, that's the solution.

Being a cop is legitimately dangerous

Not really, no. It's just not that dangerous. We imagine it must be dangerous, and so do cops themselves. But you're a lot more likely to be killed as a garbage collector or airline pilot, or a construction worker, or plenty of other jobs.

It's like with the "war on terror". The fear of danger is much more powerful than the danger itself. And like with terrorism, the fear is actively promoted for political reasons.

They do what everyone does, what has to be done for policing to be viable.

That seems like an argument against the department as a whole, not a justification for an individual's abuse.

Most of the people they deal with are lowlifes, lyres, cheaters.

Most of the people they deal with are ordinary innocent civilians whom they assume are "lowlifes" because they have been trained and conditioned to.

That said, this following cops around only plays to the problem paradigm. It's harassment, like what paparazzi do. It's belligerent. Maybe it's valuable as a protest, but it isn't as solution.

It is belligerent, and it is harassment, and it is protest. And that's the point. People with power do not voluntarily stop abusing it. They continue until met with resistance - until they are forced to stop.

Unfortunately it's effectively suicide to physically force the cops to stop, but we should do everything we can short of that to stand up against them. Standing up against the cops sets an example for others that we don't need to fear them, that they don't deserve respect and deference, and that we can do something directly to stop their abuse.

Oh for pity's sake, follow a cop around some Saturday night downtown, before lecturing us on what a soft life a cop's job is. Deal with the belligerent drunks, entitled rich boys, teenagers with too much car and no sense. Enter a store that gave off a silent alarm, in the dark, all by yourself and tell me what a walk in the park it is.

"Stand up against them"? See how lovely a world it is without them - what comes next is very much worse than what you're complaining about.

Cops deserve respect and deference, if only because they stand for public order and that deserves it.

Question a cop who's wrong about the law... Stand in front of your house in any major city as a minority... Walk down the street in any major city as a minority...

The bad perceptions of the police have very real reasons behind them.

Respect is EARNED, not given. Cops CHOSE to be cops, they are being compensated to be cops, the onus is on them, to take then danger. Not on the citizen.

servi publici and all that comes with that...

> Deal with the belligerent drunks, entitled rich boys, teenagers with too much car and no sense.

Sounds more like an unpleasant job than a dangerous one. I'm not refuting your claim that it maybe dangerous but the parent has a valid point. It may not be any more dangerous than the other jobs mentioned.

Something may feel more dangerous than it is. That's the point the parent was making, I believe.

For this purposes of this discussion seeming is being. If cops feel in danger, that is what affects their mentality.

Being a lumberjack, fisherman or roofer is not easy either.

> Cops deserve respect and deference, if only because they stand for public order and that deserves it.

I'm a firefighter/paramedic, and am very familiar with many of the scenarios you described. Many of my drinking buddies are cops, and I'm very grateful that they have my back night after night.

That being said, I disagree completely with your statement that cops deserve respect simply because they 'stand for public order'. There have been more than enough examples in recent history where cops have very clearly _not_ been acting in the public's interest, and I think it's prudent for average citizens to be wary of cops. It's an unfortunate reality, but it's the culture that law enforcement has chosen to create.

Having had a handful of interactions with LEOs while 'off the clock', it really amazes me how different their attitude is from when I'm in uniform.

Can you elaborate on how their attitude is different?

It's a very clear transition from being part of the 'in crowd' to being an outsider.

In uniform it's a lot of in-jokes, knowing glances, etc...

Out of uniform, it's very often condescension, or at least a very obvious distrust of anything I say.

Cops are not the only people who have to deal with other people, they're just the only people allowed to use a stick, an electric shock device, and a gun at their discretion in order to do it. It's a less dangerous job that housepainting, driving a cab, or working in a convenience store.

Ridiculous. You don't expect an abuser or a drunk at every single house you paint; every customer in your cab's back seat isn't belligerent. Again, ride along with a cop some day, it will change your view forever.

Pizza delivery guys have a far more dangerous job than police. Drive to a location chosen by a stranger who knows you will show up with cash, food, and a car which you will willingly exit. And all in 30 minutes or less. And they deal with the same types of obnoxious people as police, who you think deserve automatic respect for it.

Policing doesn't crack the top 10 BLS list of most dangerous jobs. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americ...

> 3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers This was very much unexpected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/opinion/The-Dangers-of-Pri...

An op-ed I randomly came across today regarding the topic.

Pizza? Give me a break. The police have to show up, every time, when there is a call for help. There's a risk there every time, not a statistical risk, not a worry that someday somebody will rob you. There's a robber or an abuser or a drunk at the address Every Single Time if you're a cop.

"Cops deserve respect and deference, if only because they stand for public order and that deserves it." Whatever good they do happen to do is rendered moot by the fact that they are complicit in the bad things that their colleagues do without them speaking up about it.

By no means is that true. Some are complicit; some are bad.

Watching/knowing and doing nothing about it makes them complicit. On top of that, that is the prime thing that they swear to do! To protect those that can't help themselves, and what do they go and do? That's right, they don't out the bad cops that prey on the helpless.

And it will never change so long as people like you absolve the shameful individuals that stand by and do nothing as innocents are harmed.

Don't be silly; you made all that up. Some cops are aware of bad behavior and don't 'out' it. Some do. Like the rest of us. The rest are on the street doing good day after day. One doesn't 'cancel' the other in any way.

You're right, there are a few cops out there who out bad behavior. They are punished, demoted, fired, and even confined to insane asylums by the cops they "betrayed". http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/16/nyregion/officer-adrian-sc...

These cops are the true heroes. Unfortunately the reason we rarely hear about them is that there are incredibly few. Much more comfortable to stick with the herd, follow orders and take your check.

"Don't be silly;" It takes a special kind of evil to dismiss such injustice because it's mentally inconvenient. Shame on you.

Only injustice I'm 'dismissing' is the stereotyping in that comment.

Cops don't deserve respect automatically--they don't stand for shit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

If they help and are decent and promote the peace, then we should honor them. By default, though, they collect a paycheck, same as anyone else.

Not really, no. It's just not that dangerous. We imagine it must be dangerous, and so do cops themselves. But you're a lot more likely to be killed as a garbage collector or airline pilot, or a construction worker, or plenty of other jobs.

Adding a bit of objective support to that statement is a report [1] from BLS that lists Mortality Rates by industry, where law enforcement is grouped with Government.

[1] http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0011.pdf

Doesn't grouping police into "Government" dilute the danger of policework by grouping it with a bunch of relatively safe office jobs? I suspect I'm looking at the wrong plot because there's no way anyone would intentionally suggest such an approach...

Perhaps the way to interpret it is that most policework is as safe as normal office jobs?

Working on an oil rig, or doing light construction, probably has a much higher incidence rate of injury.

Very good point. There is an NIH study [1] that drills into Law Enforcement Officers (LOEs). The number in the NIH study can be contrasted with the right side of slide 14. The mortality rate does raise a but from the Government rate, from 2/100k to 5.6 when you are talking homicide and 11.8 when considering all causes of fatalities; still puts it 3rd compared to other industries.

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20564516

Thanks for taking the time to dig that up! I haven't been able to conclusively determine the units in the NIH study, but we should be careful about normalization. I don't think these are comparable as they stand:

BLS Government Death Rate: 2/(100k full-time equiv workers over 1 year)

NIH LEO Homicide Rate: 5.6/(100k census LEOS over 11 years)

Instead, we should include all causes of death for LEOs (because the NIH did so for government workers) and then divide by 11 so that both figures represent deaths over the same number of worker-years. This makes law enforcement look even safer. In fact, it makes it look safer than deskwork. This is either due to a methodological difference or due to the fact that LEOs tend to be young and healthy compared to deskworkers. In any case I think the conclusion "law enforcement is not a comparatively dangerous occupation" is correct.

BLS Government Death Rate: 2/(100k full-time-equiv workers over 1 year)

NIH LEO Death Rate: 11.8/11 = 1.07/(100k census workers over 1 year)

Over generalizations. That is not the case for many SubUrban and Rural PDs. Arlington is not peaceful but Arlington PD has episodes of dysfunction that all the N.Tex folks are aware of. The Illegal drugs for "juicing" episode and drug peddling with in the PD is latest episode. Most of the Arglington cops interact with ballpark, cowboys stadium and six flags/hurricane harbor folk. Even though its sixth biggest city in Texas - Arlington is more of a crowd management and driver safety-ish zone. So, not everything in Arlington is violent crime, no we are not talking about crompton or East LA - Arlington is way way better than those gang infested areas.

Your narrative is inaccurate at best.

There's a lot of idealism here. In general, I think it'd be great if the person pulling me over for speeding was different from the person who could violently shut down an armed robbery. It'd be great if the person arresting cyclists for biking unsafely, the person helping old ladies cross the street and the one breaking up family disputes was firewalled from the one with the gun. I live in a low-income apartment complex, and I try not to think much about the fact that my neighbor routinely calls people with guns to resolve non-violent disputes with her teenage daughter (I wish I was kidding or engaging in the slightest bit of hyperbole here.)

I also think it'd be great if cops had cameras on them at all times, and if they voluntarily did that themselves.

Unfortunately, that reality is a bit, well, unrealistic as well. My understanding is that APD has dash cams, but the footage often isn't released, especially in cases of suspected brutality, and often not even to those with an interest in clearing their names. Also, my understanding is that the Peaceful Streets folks arrested here never got their own cameras back, even though no charges were ultimately filed (I think the stolen camera count was at 4.)

I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think it is "let the watchmen wear their own cameras and decide what footage to release."

I think it's a long term thing. Having a camera on you at work takes getting used to and habits need to change (thats a big part of the point).

"let the watchmen wear their own cameras" isn't all that outrageous. It's a momentum thing. If all cops were wearing cameras any incident without footage would be suspicious. I think it will happen eventually.

I agree about internal investigations. They shouldn't be internal. Investigating police and other law enforcers should be a separate unit.

I've also been thinking lately that having 2 levels of "police" would actually be a good idea: normal (aka non-violent/immediately dangerous) incidents could be handled by mediators who could try to resolve the situation (and would hopefully develop a culture/reputation for helpfulness/playing the "Good Cop" role).

So for things like speeding, jaywalking, etc - you could get pulled over and a talking to by a mediator. Then if there was a problem that couldn't be mediated/otherwise handled, only then would they call in an actual officer who could write tickets, use physical force, etc.

Then it's very clear if you're being an ahole, you get to quickly deal with cops just like today. But if you're being reasonable, often disputes could be mediated without the confrontational baggage most police encounters today seem to engender.

The key would also be that you prevent the "real" cops from dealing with these lower-level issues until AFTER they've been mediated, so the escalation process is very clear and unambiguous. Or at least require them to have a mediator show up to...mediate...first.

Of course this is different from the environment in high-crime urban areas, but just as an example of how this can play out in a realistic way: the Burning Man festival has Rangers (mediators) who are there to help people resolve their own issues and handle minor incidents. In theory, the cops there are for backup in case of major incidents, but in practice they wind up being a pain in the a by literally being the "Fun Police" and shaking people down for minor alcohol and drug infractions. Pretty much the entire event's security needs are handled entirely by the Rangers and simple mediation.

The police there could choose to be be a valuable community resource, but instead generally wind up being resented by most of the community due to (at least a perception of) having generally antagonistic and abusive attitudes. This dynamic is the real problem more than anything else IMO - both on and off-Playa. When large numbers of law-abiding citizens have a negative impression of your entire profession, something is definitely wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com