He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all support our right to protest in a peaceful way without fear of a disproportionate response by law enforcement.
I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional.
The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.
If I had the power to change only one thing this year, it would be toward the prohibition of active incitement by police, to include:
- the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters
- the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration
- shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles
> He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of itself.
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute the claim that you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the US. Is that really so?
Where I am (Sweden) you can "apply for a permit weeks and months in advance", but you don't have to. There's nothing illegal about the peaceful assembly of a large number of people, in fact it's a right ensured by "basic law" (similar to a constitution).
"freedom to protest is important in and of itself"
That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties.
I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.
I always thought we asked two simple things from the police as they carry out their duties. Professionalism, which as you said is the ability to withstand provocation to anger without acting violently. And courage, which is the ability to endure fear also without acting violently.
I think they are still doing a pretty good job on the whole as far as the former goes. Its the latter I find them slipping on as of late.
The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and terrorism is the rhetoric.
"It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."
I've heard this sentiment before, but never so well written.
Here is another gem "It is somewhat perplexing when children are injected into the conversation as an attempt to bolster a position or as an attempt to thwart the position of another." I was hesitant to read this at first as it had nothing to do with programming. However, I am glad I did. I would recommend the HN community to read both the mail and the response. The response was well thought out, organized and calls out a few biases we carry around.
Be sure to read the whole post, as well as the email chain below it.
This was part of a complaint email sent to him:
>>I wanted to send you this email to express my frustration and outrage at how the situation of these protesters is being handled in Nashville. The first night protesters marched here after the incidents in Ferguson they never should have been allowed to shut down the interstate. Instead of at least threatening to arrest them, they were served coffee and hot chocolate.
This is how you deal with protests. Good job Nashville police; much respect. My own frustration lies with whoever sent this complaint.
Any time the police are forced to go arresting people for protesting they've failed a little bit. This is especially true when the protests are about police.
Granted there are times when they are left with no choice, but if there is a strong relationship established between the protesters and the police, such that the protesters believe that the police understand their concerns, how much less likely does this become?
> The police are merely a representative of a government formed by the people for the people—for all people
Peelian Principles [1] explicitly say that the police force is not representing the government, as that's the job of the military. Firstly, the police force are citizens in uniform and part of the local community. The police are explicitly in place so the military can stay out of the community.
Militarised police forces around the world would do well to keep in mind that they are making themselves redundant, since if the police are indistinguishable from the military, they might as well be done away with and replaced by the military.
When did the plural for "person" become "persons" instead of "people"? Is this just some weird Americanism, or is there a specific difference in police jargon?
His response email is exceptional:
"As imperfect humans, we have a tendency to limit our association with other persons to those persons who are most like us. Unfortunately, there is even more of a human tendency to stay within our comfort zone by further narrowing those associations to those persons who share our thoughts and opinions. By doing this we can avoid giving consideration to thoughts and ideas different than our own. This would make us uncomfortable. By considering only the thoughts and ideas we are in agreement with, we stay in our comfort zone. Our own biases get reinforced and reflected back at us leaving no room for any opinion but our own. By doing this, we often convince ourselves that the majority of the world shares opinion and that anyone with another opinion is, obviously, wrong.
It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."
"In the year 2013, our officers made over four hundred thousand vehicle stops, mostly for traffic violations. A citation was issued in only about one in six of those stops. Five of the six received warnings. This is the police exercising discretion for minor violations of the law. Few, if any, persons would argue that the police should have no discretion."
Huh. Really? Warnings five out of six times? Is that pretty common?
This was killed by user flags, but we unkilled it. It's surprisingly thoughtful and unusual enough to make it intellectually interesting and therefore on topic for this site.
It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't, but to do so he has to completely ignore the fact that protesters were not just being heard, but shutting down major highways and disrupting people's efforts to enter the mall, this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. Sure, if you ignore that then yeah, the writer is a total dope.
> It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted he wasn't
I'm guessing the second 'he' refers to the letter writer and not the chief. It's a little unclear from the sentence.
This seemed like a very well written and thoughtful rebuttal to some of the concerns in the letter. I didn't get a tone that it was showing the letter's author they weren't 'well adjusted'.
> [..] this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal.
If the protesters in Tennessee weren't being violent/criminal, why compare them to the protests in some other cities? It was mentioned that the highways were kept open after the first night.
Sounds like the whole thing went pretty peacefully. If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision.
When confronted by an unexpected powder keg situation, the best answer is often to try to defuse it gently while putting in place contingencies to prevent recurrence. Throwing a lit match (or the riot squad) has not worked out so well for Ferguson...
[+] [-] sfeng|11 years ago|reply
I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a professional.
The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious, but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.
[+] [-] ibejoeb|11 years ago|reply
- the tactic of first-move provocation, e.g., manhandling and other physical intimidation during routine encounters - the playing of provocateurs during public demonstration - shows of force and the deployment of light weapons and armored vehicles
These things are the antithesis of peacekeeping.
[+] [-] bjornsing|11 years ago|reply
I agree wholeheartedly. Also, I was a bit surprised that he didn't refute the claim that you need a permit to peacefully assemble in the US. Is that really so?
Where I am (Sweden) you can "apply for a permit weeks and months in advance", but you don't have to. There's nothing illegal about the peaceful assembly of a large number of people, in fact it's a right ensured by "basic law" (similar to a constitution).
[+] [-] GICodeWarrior|11 years ago|reply
That is your opinion, and while I agree with it, police exist to enforce laws (with discretion), not to promote or otherwise engage in discussions regarding civil liberties.
I think he did an excellent job making his points without taking sides.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] noonespecial|11 years ago|reply
I think they are still doing a pretty good job on the whole as far as the former goes. Its the latter I find them slipping on as of late.
[+] [-] V7Theory|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dubfan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobu|11 years ago|reply
I've heard this sentiment before, but never so well written.
[+] [-] JoelSutherland|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sriram_sun|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smtddr|11 years ago|reply
This was part of a complaint email sent to him:
>>I wanted to send you this email to express my frustration and outrage at how the situation of these protesters is being handled in Nashville. The first night protesters marched here after the incidents in Ferguson they never should have been allowed to shut down the interstate. Instead of at least threatening to arrest them, they were served coffee and hot chocolate.
This is how you deal with protests. Good job Nashville police; much respect. My own frustration lies with whoever sent this complaint.
[+] [-] vertis|11 years ago|reply
Granted there are times when they are left with no choice, but if there is a strong relationship established between the protesters and the police, such that the protesters believe that the police understand their concerns, how much less likely does this become?
[+] [-] femto|11 years ago|reply
Peelian Principles [1] explicitly say that the police force is not representing the government, as that's the job of the military. Firstly, the police force are citizens in uniform and part of the local community. The police are explicitly in place so the military can stay out of the community.
Militarised police forces around the world would do well to keep in mind that they are making themselves redundant, since if the police are indistinguishable from the military, they might as well be done away with and replaced by the military.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles
[+] [-] KayEss|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] awjr|11 years ago|reply
It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original thoughts."
[+] [-] MistahKoala|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dchichkov|11 years ago|reply
Huh. Really? Warnings five out of six times? Is that pretty common?
[+] [-] lizzard|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] V7Theory|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MBCook|11 years ago|reply
I'm guessing the second 'he' refers to the letter writer and not the chief. It's a little unclear from the sentence.
This seemed like a very well written and thoughtful rebuttal to some of the concerns in the letter. I didn't get a tone that it was showing the letter's author they weren't 'well adjusted'.
> [..] this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been violent and criminal.
If the protesters in Tennessee weren't being violent/criminal, why compare them to the protests in some other cities? It was mentioned that the highways were kept open after the first night.
Sounds like the whole thing went pretty peacefully. If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent decision.
[+] [-] acveilleux|11 years ago|reply