It doesn't fit the HN demographic narrative that the cop is the perp and the perp is the victim. Live in a bad part of town for a while and reality will cure that.
Worth a read, but quite infuriating: "Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?"
I sincerely hope that the vast majority of law enforcement DOES NOT HOLD an authoritarian view like that. That's just "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" from dragnet surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and stop-and-frisk, but phrased slightly differently. In short, it's a distinctly un-American and anti-Constitutional viewpoint. "Cooperate with me, I have a gun" - distinctly not a rule-of-law ethos, but more of a might-makes-right ethos, and ethos that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Did you read the whole article? I realize that the two sentences you quote are in there, and taken by themselves, they can be viewed as infuriating. But his overall point is quite different.
What he's saying is more like "You're not going to win the physical confrontation, so don't try to start one, and don't act like you're going to." That's pretty good advice. And he advocates going ahead and suing the police if they are in the wrong, and videotaping them, and and and... He's not just holding an authoritarian view.
I think his background (17 years on LAPD and Prof. of Homeland Security) is representative that officers with authoritarian views are more likely to succeed. The LAPD was notorious for abuse and racial profiling during his tenure, yet he offers no expertise on the racial issues that compound the civilian behavior he laments.
Were we to take his message with a grain of salt, police officers never abuse their power without being antagonized first. So don't antagonize them.
"If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
I don't think any of those actions except the last one could be considered a legitimate reason to "shoot, taser or pepper-spray" somebody. Isn't that exactly what this whole controversy is about?
"If you've been arrested after a confrontation with a police officer, consult a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. That lawyer can advise you of the applicable law and your options."
If there is one thing police is scared about it is an out of control mob. Egypt is an example of what the possible outcomes are in situations like that. Any amount of weaponry can be overcome by sheer numbers once the citizens get pushed beyond caring if they live or not. Police the world over should never forget who their ultimate masters are, this guy even refers to that 'Don't scream at me that you pay my salary'. But they do, and as such police is ultimately accountable for keeping the peace and enforcing the law, for protection of people first and assets second.
As soon as that part is lost 'to protect and serve' (or whatever the local variation is) becomes a hollow slogan.
When I was a kid I was taught that police were to be respected at all times because they have dangerous jobs and are first responders when you need them. Nowadays I'm not so sure that I should trust police, respect them often enough much less (my few interactions with police have been with a few exceptions quite the little displays of 'we have power over you and you'll know it'). I've seen first hand corruption, bribe solicitation, abuse of power and a refusal to actually do the work they were hired for in the first place. I wished I could re-gain my childhood respect for the police forces of the world but they're going to have to work really hard to get that.
People seem to forget that most of our tax dollars goes towards defense. Governments(particularly ours(USA)) are exceedingly good at defense and murder.
I understand we're "taking care of the bad guys", but we're still murdering them when we drop a 500 lbs pound, laser-guided bomb on them. You can call it defense or protection or whatever you want, we still have to murder them(in the most extreme cases) to achieve the goal.
We have entire apparatus set up to accomplish that end goal. We call them departments or agencies or branches. Department of Defense, National Security Agency, Marines, Army, National Guard, etc.
All to murder people. So the idea that somehow you as a protestor are going to overcome all that apparatus by throwing a molotov cocktail at a police officer(again, the terminus in a very large murder apparatus) is so appallingly stupid that I can't help but side with apparatus itself.
Governments have a monopoly on violence, you will lose. You need to find a different way to communicate your anger.
So if a cop says "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me." he's right. Not morally, but logically.
"Do what the officer tells you to and it will end safely for both of you."
If you do what the officer tells you to, 100% of the time without question, you will self-incriminate. You will surrender your rights. You will answer questions without an attorney. You will NOT answer questions, without verbally exercising your right to remain silent - and shockingly, that can be used against you as evidence. You can't answer some questions and not answer others - there is no such thing as selectively exercising your right to remain silent. (Other than your name, and probably address, etc.) If you answer some questions, and don't answer others, that can be used against you.
The jobs that cops do is impossibly hard. I mean that, impossible. It is not possible to always defend the rights of people, and always collect evidence to prosecute. Those are competing goals.
But the advice, "do what the officer tells you," is not good advice.
"Finally, cops are legally prohibited from using excessive force: The moment a suspect submits and stops resisting, the officers must cease use of force."
And as we all know, this rule has never been violated before.
This article twanged of what we tell women in India (and implicitly tell women everywhere in the world) -- if you don't want to get raped, don't wear skimpy clothes, go out alone at night, try to stand up for yourself, or go about your life how you see fit. If you do any of those things and get raped, you had it coming for you.
"Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me."
Maybe it's the rebellious spirit still lingering, but there is only one hard cold fact in there. We DO pay their salary! The rest of the things I wouldn't say to my worst enemy. However I find it funny that when talking about law enforcement stating that specific fact turns into a threat...
We need cops to record video of their interactions with the public, for everybody's protection.
Also, it's not true that if you cooperate cops won't be violent with you, just see some episodes of the tv show "cops", if that's what they do on camera, what do they do off camera?
(from what I remember: hitting and laughing at a drunk while he was already in the cell, bringing down a guy because he had priors, hitting a guy because he looked back when he was told not to etc)
Let's separate morality from causation here. Causation is fairly simple: aggression of any kind, even just yelling, causes (statistically) you to get hurt by police. That's just a fact.
Therefore, the author reasonably concludes that it's wise to cooperate or at least remain calm.
There's are separate moral and policy questions, of course, that can hopefully reduce violence in police encounters. Technology plays a role here, too.
A lot of this makes sense, but it has at least, on pretty fatal flaw. While I agree, that regularly cooperating within reason with the police is helpful to both parties, he takes for granted that this is a lawful stop, or not otherwise a reasonable request the officer is making. Obviously, your choice is to comply with a questionable request or go to jail, or otherwise be molested by the officer (molested being non-sexual in this use).
So unfortunately, electing not to speak with the cops (I suggest this in most cases after volunteering basic information) or otherwise challenging them, enrages the human inside them, and not the lawful civic steward they are acting in the capacity of. Further, complaining to them about them, is impossible.
So in essence, submitting to a cop could be reasonable, however, the vast majority of these viral incidents occur when a cop is possibly over-reaching in his authority and is a single officer on the scene. This is not really addressed.
"Regardless of what happened with Mike Brown, in the overwhelming majority of cases it is not the cops, but the people they stop, who can prevent detentions from turning into tragedies."
...
"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."
Even though I'd recommend not antagonizing cops just from a personal safety standpoint, this really rubs me the wrong way.
Most of the times this topic is broached from the point of view of the cops, it seems like there's shockingly little empathy for those on the receiving end of police violence, and that the justification for such violence is they were asking for it.
That statement shows everything that wrong with accountability. It's the last stop, after common purpose, culture and sense of duty have all failed. Good luck getting accountability from Ferguson Police.
This is assuming you have supreme power over the people, which you do not. America is 'We The People', not 'The State'. You are human and subject to the same laws you enforce. In fact, as a public servant, you work for the people, not the state. Remember that.
The internationally accepted solution, it seems, when The People are facing down state security apparatus, is for the international community to arm them. Calling Vladimir Putin!
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] happyscrappy|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jebblue|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bediger4000|11 years ago|reply
I sincerely hope that the vast majority of law enforcement DOES NOT HOLD an authoritarian view like that. That's just "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" from dragnet surveillance, DUI checkpoints, and stop-and-frisk, but phrased slightly differently. In short, it's a distinctly un-American and anti-Constitutional viewpoint. "Cooperate with me, I have a gun" - distinctly not a rule-of-law ethos, but more of a might-makes-right ethos, and ethos that should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|11 years ago|reply
What he's saying is more like "You're not going to win the physical confrontation, so don't try to start one, and don't act like you're going to." That's pretty good advice. And he advocates going ahead and suing the police if they are in the wrong, and videotaping them, and and and... He's not just holding an authoritarian view.
[+] [-] iaw|11 years ago|reply
Were we to take his message with a grain of salt, police officers never abuse their power without being antagonized first. So don't antagonize them.
[+] [-] Freeboots|11 years ago|reply
This grated on me
[+] [-] jayrox|11 years ago|reply
And so do I.
[+] [-] dkyc|11 years ago|reply
I don't think any of those actions except the last one could be considered a legitimate reason to "shoot, taser or pepper-spray" somebody. Isn't that exactly what this whole controversy is about?
[+] [-] 31reasons|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jebblue|11 years ago|reply
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-i-arrested-yellin...
"If you've been arrested after a confrontation with a police officer, consult a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. That lawyer can advise you of the applicable law and your options."
[+] [-] jacquesm|11 years ago|reply
As soon as that part is lost 'to protect and serve' (or whatever the local variation is) becomes a hollow slogan.
When I was a kid I was taught that police were to be respected at all times because they have dangerous jobs and are first responders when you need them. Nowadays I'm not so sure that I should trust police, respect them often enough much less (my few interactions with police have been with a few exceptions quite the little displays of 'we have power over you and you'll know it'). I've seen first hand corruption, bribe solicitation, abuse of power and a refusal to actually do the work they were hired for in the first place. I wished I could re-gain my childhood respect for the police forces of the world but they're going to have to work really hard to get that.
[+] [-] debt|11 years ago|reply
I understand we're "taking care of the bad guys", but we're still murdering them when we drop a 500 lbs pound, laser-guided bomb on them. You can call it defense or protection or whatever you want, we still have to murder them(in the most extreme cases) to achieve the goal.
We have entire apparatus set up to accomplish that end goal. We call them departments or agencies or branches. Department of Defense, National Security Agency, Marines, Army, National Guard, etc.
All to murder people. So the idea that somehow you as a protestor are going to overcome all that apparatus by throwing a molotov cocktail at a police officer(again, the terminus in a very large murder apparatus) is so appallingly stupid that I can't help but side with apparatus itself.
Governments have a monopoly on violence, you will lose. You need to find a different way to communicate your anger.
So if a cop says "I'm a cop. If you don't want to get hurt, don't challenge me." he's right. Not morally, but logically.
Also lest you forget, "Never talk to police": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[+] [-] SeanLuke|11 years ago|reply
23% of the US budget is defense, intelligence, and other protection. It's not even the single largest category.
[+] [-] ibebrett|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] VikingCoder|11 years ago|reply
If you do what the officer tells you to, 100% of the time without question, you will self-incriminate. You will surrender your rights. You will answer questions without an attorney. You will NOT answer questions, without verbally exercising your right to remain silent - and shockingly, that can be used against you as evidence. You can't answer some questions and not answer others - there is no such thing as selectively exercising your right to remain silent. (Other than your name, and probably address, etc.) If you answer some questions, and don't answer others, that can be used against you.
The jobs that cops do is impossibly hard. I mean that, impossible. It is not possible to always defend the rights of people, and always collect evidence to prosecute. Those are competing goals.
But the advice, "do what the officer tells you," is not good advice.
I am not a lawyer, and your results may vary.
[+] [-] WettowelReactor|11 years ago|reply
>>It is not possible to always defend the rights of people, >>and always collect evidence to prosecute.
but the US system was designed to weight the scales in favor of defending the rights of individuals when these goals come at odds.
"innocent until proven guilty".
[+] [-] mabbo|11 years ago|reply
And as we all know, this rule has never been violated before.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] frenchman_in_ny|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmerl|11 years ago|reply
Not convincing. Can he argue that no people with sadistic tendencies work in police just because it offers them a "lawful" way express their cruelty?
[+] [-] jaxytee|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keerthiko|11 years ago|reply
Bullshit.
[+] [-] usingpond|11 years ago|reply
Is this satire? How can anybody hold this viewpoint and not think of themselves as human garbage.
[+] [-] afs35mm|11 years ago|reply
Maybe it's the rebellious spirit still lingering, but there is only one hard cold fact in there. We DO pay their salary! The rest of the things I wouldn't say to my worst enemy. However I find it funny that when talking about law enforcement stating that specific fact turns into a threat...
[+] [-] lazyant|11 years ago|reply
Also, it's not true that if you cooperate cops won't be violent with you, just see some episodes of the tv show "cops", if that's what they do on camera, what do they do off camera?
(from what I remember: hitting and laughing at a drunk while he was already in the cell, bringing down a guy because he had priors, hitting a guy because he looked back when he was told not to etc)
[+] [-] jeffdavis|11 years ago|reply
Therefore, the author reasonably concludes that it's wise to cooperate or at least remain calm.
There's are separate moral and policy questions, of course, that can hopefully reduce violence in police encounters. Technology plays a role here, too.
[+] [-] vonklaus|11 years ago|reply
So unfortunately, electing not to speak with the cops (I suggest this in most cases after volunteering basic information) or otherwise challenging them, enrages the human inside them, and not the lawful civic steward they are acting in the capacity of. Further, complaining to them about them, is impossible.
So in essence, submitting to a cop could be reasonable, however, the vast majority of these viral incidents occur when a cop is possibly over-reaching in his authority and is a single officer on the scene. This is not really addressed.
[+] [-] Sambdala|11 years ago|reply
...
"Even though it might sound harsh and impolitic, here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you."
Even though I'd recommend not antagonizing cops just from a personal safety standpoint, this really rubs me the wrong way.
Most of the times this topic is broached from the point of view of the cops, it seems like there's shockingly little empathy for those on the receiving end of police violence, and that the justification for such violence is they were asking for it.
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sloveni4n|11 years ago|reply
You too make mistakes: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/04/11/tosh-0-producer-acci...
[+] [-] gaius|11 years ago|reply