Hacker News Reader

Comment by leesalminen | Hacker News Reader

Related article [1] shows the absurdity of how cops "think". The officer in this article believes that he does have unlimited power and it should never be threatened by the citizenry.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/08/19/...

View on HN

His very own words in the same article contradict your claims.

I am aware that corrupt and bully cops exist. When it comes to police misconduct, I side with the ACLU: Having worked as an internal affairs investigator, I know that some officers engage in unprofessional and arrogant behavior; sometimes they behave like criminals themselves. I also believe every cop should use a body camera to record interactions with the community at all times. Every police car should have a video recorder.

The 3 subsequent sentences after your cherry-picked quote are:

> And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search. You can refuse consent to search your car or home if there’s no warrant (though a pat-down is still allowed if there is cause for suspicion).

> Always ask the officer whether you are under detention or are free to leave.

> But if you believe (or know) that the cop stopping you is violating your rights or is acting like a bully, I guarantee that the situation will not become easier if you show your anger and resentment.

So this officer "agrees" with the ACLU's recommendations to LE agencies. Great. That doesn't mean anything in the real world. If you stand up for your rights, you will be beaten mercilessly.

He's basically saying "don't submit to illegal police activity, but if you resist us in any way, legal or not, you will be beat.

Maybe he's saying you should resist in a way that doesn't overtly display anger and resentment.

There's a difference between a descriptive statement and a normative statement. "The tiger will bite you if you approach it" is a descriptive statement. "The tiger will bite you if you approach it, and rightfully so" is a normative statement.

All of the statements you quoted are descriptive statements. Just because someone makes a descriptive statement doesn't mean that they endorse the behavior in any way.

Related to my other comment, I think we need individual police to submit to, and eventually desire, continued intensive training on the topic of justice. Perhaps it can start in one town: fire all the officers that don't happily attend classes on justice.

Training isn't the issue, lack of punishment is. They know what they're doing is wrong.

This is probably a very practical truth. Nonetheless, there seem to be a lot of police who are actually saying the wrong things (as well as doing the wrong things), and I have to think they don't quite know right from wrong.

I think they know what is "wrong" in the sense that they ought to be punished for it, and they see themselves not being punished for it (except for "free vacations"), hence they see their personal (not incredibly developed) morals above that of the morality enforcement mechanisms society puts on them. They probably override what we see as decency by simple reasonings ("those people have no idea what it's like on the street"), and they're addicts trippin' on that power and moral superiority.

They may have forgotten, but they knew when they started; you forget when you're not punished. The issue is lack of consequences.

Don't apply the bad logic of one cop to every single cop in existence

Reply on news.ycombinator.com