Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Morrigi]

Well, American news journalists are definetly awake now: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/dallas-police-headquarters-shooting/index.html

They're still not sure if it was just one guy, and from the briefing, it sounds like at least two, maybe? Not sure, at least one is maybe dead.

Yeah, sounds like they shot him through the windshield with a .50 cal rifle. That must have made a mess.

[SalmonGod]

*chuckle*

[Bauglir]

Goddamn it. I hope nobody actually believes public servants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their capacity as public servants, but on the other hand that might be too complicated an idea for what will inevitably be a political talking point.

[Sheb]

So the place may or may not have lacked a permit, and they send a busload of cops to barge in and destroy the doors? I really don't get how police works in the US. Why didn't they just send one guy to inform the manager his store was being closed?

[Baffler]

So the place may or may not have lacked a permit, and they send a busload of cops to barge in and destroy the doors? I really don't get how police works in the US. Why didn't they just send one guy to inform the manager his store was being closed?

US police seem to assume that anyone doing anything related to illegal drugs will be heavily armed, desperate, or both, no matter the context. The desire to make a show of force may also be a factor. This often leads to stupid, but honestly I can see why law enforcement in border states is so paranoid about it.

[UXLZ]

Because in 'Murica that manager might have a gun that he might decide to maybe shoot at the poor officer with and I FEARED FOR MY LIFE GOD DAMNIT.

Something like that, would be my guess.

[DJ]

I don't get how that argument can actually work with the general public, which it very much does. It's as if firemen just let fires burn themselves out because going in to extinguish it could be dangerous, or doctors refusing to treat anyone with anything contagious. If you're getting paid to take risks to make it safer for civilians, in no situation is your personal safety more important than theirs.

[nenjin]

I don't get how that argument can actually work with the general public, which it very much does. It's as if firemen just let fires burn themselves out because going in to extinguish it could be dangerous, or doctors refusing to treat anyone with anything contagious. If you're getting paid to take risks to make it safer for civilians, in no situation is your personal safety more important than theirs.

This has been my primary gripe with the change in law enforcement culture in America since 9/11. Previously it seemed like a cop's highest responsibility was serving the public. Their job entailed a degree of risk and they accepted that risk as part of doing their job right.

Post 9/11, the culture changed. Not only do police take a "seek and destroy" attitude to the threats to the public, in order to prevent a massacre, but the emphasis for them is to survive such encounters. A police officer getting home safely at the end of the day is more important to them than making sure the right amount of force is used for the situation, more important than making sure the right person is being targeted for police action. Seconds matter in dangerous situations and all that. Add in a healthy dose of fear, some racism and some uncontrolled anger, and you end up where we are today: cops who shoot first and ask questions later.

[SalmonGod]

Policing has always been that way to some extent in the U.S.  It's just moved much further in that direction over the past 15 years.  I'm not sure how much it can be blamed on 9/11, either.  Mission creep for SWAT teams and their tactics had been going on for a very long time before 9/11, especially in relation to the drug war.  The Battle in Seattle 1999 was also huge turning point for police, which can't be ignored.  It seems to me like the cultural movement in law enforcement was already established with some momentum, and 9/11 just multiplied that momentum.

[nenjin]

True, but 9/11 put the fear of terrorism (and the fallacy that they could stop it) into the life of the average street cop. SWAT and the drug wars are one thing. But when your average police officer became armed with a M16 and a mandate to be vigilant for terrorism, I think it changed the way they interacted with and viewed the public.

[Rolan7]

Cop lives matter just as much as anyone elses.  A cop isn't obligated to sacrifice their life to save anyone, that's a personal choice.  Their job is already (depending on where they work) risky, that doesn't mean they have to take further risks with belligerent suspects.

Of course it's understandable that someone would fear a cop and fail to comply, with the way cops are painted as racist psychopathic egotists these days.  Which causes suspects to escalate, grappling for cops' guns and shit, then getting "murdered".  It's a vicious cycle.

But cops should absolutely be recorded whenever possible, so misconduct gets punished (or at *least* gets cases thrown out).  Ideally that would help restore some faith, and help break the cycle.
And the drug war is fucking insane, as shown by the widespread practice of dispensary raids like this one.  And in *this* case, the cops were also class-A douchebags who better get fired.

I don't get how that argument can actually work with the general public, which it very much does. It's as if firemen just let fires burn themselves out because going in to extinguish it could be dangerous, or doctors refusing to treat anyone with anything contagious. If you're getting paid to take risks to make it safer for civilians, in no situation is your personal safety more important than theirs.

Nah that would be if they just stayed at the station, and let society crumble without the rule of law.  I suppose some anarchists might be okay with that, which is just sad.

[Egan_BW]

It's like firefighters broke into your house on the suspicion that you might have left the stove on. 

[Frumple]

Nah that would be if they just stayed at the station, and let society crumble without the rule of law.  I suppose some anarchists might be okay with that, which is just sad.

Ha ha ha. Remember when the cops actually more or less did that in... new york, wasn't it? Somewhere or another. Just stopped enforcing most laws in a fair amount of places. And things improved, significantly, for a great deal of the area's population. Thing you have to remember is that in a number of places in the US, the police force already doesn't represent "the rule of law". Rather, they're as much a source of local problems as any criminals are, sometimes even more so.

LEO corruption and abuse in the US (and elsewhere, where it's often just as bad or, at times, worse) isn't something you can just brush off as some kind of reciprocal cycle, unfortunately. The institution in general is rotten as hell in a lot of places, and outside pressures (such as public view of police officers starting to come more in line with the reality of how a lot of said officers act) only accounts for a portion of that. The balance of power/effect/whatever isn't equal.

Still, yeah, LEOs actually getting caught at the shit they do more often, and finally starting to have to rein themselves in a bit (which is maybe starting to happen! It's kinda' hard to tell.), would almost certainly get them to start the internal reforms necessary for external reactions to start being less belligerent. Hopefully the camera et al movements gaining traction will help with that, to some degree. Maybe in my lifetime we'll actually see cops regularly fired for misconduct without requiring the existence of widely dispersed video evidence :V

Not that I really think the lot starting this particular discussion will get fired, of course. Dunno if we've gained that much ground, yet.

[Rolan7]

Nah that would be if they just stayed at the station, and let society crumble without the rule of law.  I suppose some anarchists might be okay with that, which is just sad.

Ha ha ha. Remember when the cops actually more or less did that in... new york, wasn't it? Somewhere or another. Just stopped enforcing most laws in a fair amount of places. And things improved, significantly, for a great deal of the area's population. Thing you have to remember is that in a number of places in the US, the police force already doesn't represent "the rule of law". Rather, they're as much a source of local problems as any criminals are, sometimes even more so.

No I don't "remember" any of that.  It sounds like the exact sort of rhetoric which makes people disrespect and fear cops, then get themselves killed because they treat cops like gangbangers.

I'm not blaming the victims (dead suspects), just this widespread belief that wrestling with cops is a good idea because they're supposedly "trigger-happy" and racist.  It's the viral idea that's the problem, not any group of people.

[DG]

You have strange notions, Rolan. The first I've heard of anyone thinking that wrestling cops is a good idea is your unconfirmed sources (imagination?).