Hacker News Reader

Comment by cassac | Hacker News Reader

I find it reasonable for the cops not to make arrests if nobody is going to prosecute. I don’t consider that propaganda for the police to say as such. If the DA openly says they won’t prosecute a certain crime why would I expect the police to arrest for it?

And of course the cops would have a cop bias, and teachers have a teacher bias, and service works have a service worker bias and on and on. Everyone looks out for their own across all cross sections of their identity.

What’s different is it seems cops get no additional cross sections anymore. Once they are a cop their ven diagram shifts to 100% cop and now they are vilified.

View on HN

> I find it reasonable for the cops not to make arrests if nobody is going to prosecute.

You find it reasonable for people to be paid and not do their jobs? They're not paid to administer justice, they're paid to do what they're told.

I never said they are paid to “administer justice” but I do expect them to prioritize their activities. Making arrests for things that won’t be prosecuted is a waste of time.

I’m honestly not even sure what you are advocating for. J walking is a good example of something I expect them not to bother with 99% of the time but it is a law nearly everywhere. To enforce that in a major metro could use all the cops every day. Huge waste of time.

I'm advocating for police to accept the priorities we give them. I don't get to set the priorities at my job; I don't get to favor working on features I think are good and to ignore features I don't. I'm given priorities.

What happens after people are arrested is not relevant to the police, and they have no training or authority to make decisions about it. We elected different people for that.

Isn’t the DA telling, both them and us, what the priority is if they say they won’t prosecute a specific crime?

Along that same line of thought is that it is not relevant what the DA thinks about the law. The powers that be created the law and the DA should prosecute it every time there is an arrest and let the courts figure it out.

Also in your job you are given priorities and you work on the lowest ones last. And if you always have more priorities than hours in the day then the lower priority ones don’t get done. Based on the laws that are actually on the books there are more law breakers than police officers so they have to pick and choose their priorities. That’s still a reasonable thing to do.

If the police fail to arrest someone, that is on them. No passing the buck.

> If the DA openly says they won’t prosecute a certain crime why would I expect the police to arrest for it?

Can you cite which DA said that about what crime, other than marijuana possession?

> Once they are a cop their ven diagram shifts to 100% cop and now they are vilified.

Let's not turn them into powerless victims, act like that is the only response police get, that they are such vulnerable people, or that it is not partly a consequence of their actions. They get all sorts of responses from lots of people, and as public officials, criticism is a part of the job. Arguably, if they did their jobs better, they wouldn't be criticized as much.

But rather than changing the subject, a far more important issue is police abusing civilians: The police have a lot of power, well beyond criticism, which ruins lives. Far more important than protecting the suddenly fragile police officers' self-esteem are justice and freedom.

The Los Angeles district attorney's office, under the leadership of George Gascon, has circulated a list of crimes it will not prosecute. You can read about it in the Grey Lady, if you are picky with your news sources like that.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/magazine/george-gascon-lo...

Do not persist in your unbelief, but believe!

The DA of that county is currently pretty busy trying to undo all the damage that yet another gang of openly racist cops in Torrance has done to thousands of his cases. I find it understandable that property theft has fallen down this list.

> The Los Angeles district attorney's office, under the leadership of George Gascon, has circulated a list of crimes it will not prosecute. ...

> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/17/magazine/george-gascon-lo...

That isn't in the article. Have you ever seen evidence supporting your claim, or are you repeating what others have said (perilous, esp. on the Internet!). Here's what the article says:

He mandated an end to seeking cash bail, the death penalty, the sentence of life without parole and the prosecution of anyone younger than 18 as an adult. And in a rare, if not unprecedented, move by an American prosecutor, Gascón declared his intent to effectively end very long sentences ...

The article also links to a memo from Gascon regarding sentencing enhancements.

I think you can say they are vilified as a group without saying they are powerless victims. I think they have a crappy job that is high risk high impact and regardless of if they are good or bad they get lumped in with the bad every time. I think they are people and I think sometimes we all backseat drive judging them. I think it’s fair to criticize them I don’t think it’s fair to call their viewpoint blanket propaganda.

Among the crimes Bragg said his office would not prosecute: marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces; not paying public transportation fare; trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution.

With that said, as you did change the subject, I do think there should be more accountability and reform and I’m not a fan of immunity. Not because they are all bad and we need to “put them in check,” but because most are good and we should have a system in place we all feel safe having, both “us” and “them.” Why can’t you be pro reform and pro police?

> Why can’t you be pro reform and pro police?

Did someone say you couldn't? I can understand some people, having experienced generations of life-altering brutality and oppression, might distrust police; I'm not going to tell them what they should think.

Also, what exactly does "pro police" mean? Supporting their long-standing practices? Supporting people who abuse civilians, others who cover it up, and yet more who protect the system that enables them? That might be hard to reconcile with reform - you have to recognize the problems to reform them. Not hating all individual police? Sure. Personally, I think any hate is a flaw of humanity.

Presumably arresting someone for robbing a morning train would at least allow you to hold them and prevent them from robbing an afternoon train.

But then you won’t be able to respond to that guy shooting up the mall.

These are Union Pacific police. They don't respond to mall shootings.

Police officers often lie about what can or will be charged for political reasons (or laziness reasons, or some other reason unrelated to what the DA supposedly will or won't do). That is why the parent said it might be propaganda.

Police will often overcharge, with the intent that the DA can use the more severe charges to secure a plea deal for lesser charges. It makes for less paperwork and fewer cases to process through jury trials.

If the parent wants to assert that they should provide proof as such. They didn’t do that and instead sited an example that is exactly something I would consider well reasoned for the police force. I also expect some level of grey area of truthiness because like I said earlier all groups are like that. I doubt parent jumps into every statement made by a group to remind us that sometimes people lie to serve their own interests.

I do not think cops are more or less corrupt than the average, but I do believe a corrupt cop has more impact than average. And because of that I do think they need higher standards and more accountability. I do not think they as a group need to be the “them” in the “us vs them” mentality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com