How I imagine this guy:
Except more sinister.
That's a pretty succinct summary of the problem with US police these days. This attitude is the problem. How far gone do you have to be to say that and not notice what's wrong with it?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. 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. Most field stops are complete in minutes. How difficult is it to cooperate for that long?
This has been a known phenomenon for a long time. There's a quote from Homer two and half millenia ago that says something to the effect of, "The sword calls for violence." Paraphrasing, because I can't really remember it, but the attitude displayed in the above quote definitely helps me solidify my belief that beat cops shouldn't have guns. Edit: "The blade itself insights to deeds of violence." Big ups to CashewGuy for the correction via pm.
I don't want to detract from your point, but it should be incites, not insights. Personally, I'm a supporter of second amendment rights, but I can understand the desire for reasonable limitations on that right because of that very phenomenon. No matter what the policy, everyone's end goal should be a more peaceful society. Criminalizing, banning or otherwise outlawing all weapons isn't the best solution, in my opinion, but neither is advocating for the promulgation and dissemination of weapons among the public, including the police. Murder is a terrible crime and advocating that people use lethal force to protect themselves from any perceived threat of harm is one very small step away from advocating murder itself.
The penalty for scaring a cop is death. Statistically driving a cab is more dangerous Than being a police officer.
Yes to both. Don't forget that a whole lot of things are communicated through body language. If I walk toward someone very quickly, with my shoulders squared and chest out and a big ol' scowl on my face, most people would not think that I'm going to ask them if they've allowed Jesus into their life. Cops are trained to perceive threats and so they probably tend to see more threats than people who are not trained to respond to dangerous situations. Attribution is a huge cause of conflict and EVERYONE does it ALL THE TIME. But, we can train ourselves to respond in different ways.
He's not wrong though. The cop is there to end the problem, whatever that problem is. You don't complain about the cop to the cop, you complain about the cop to the cops boss. To the mayor. To the media. To the Attorney General for your state. To your lawyer if need be. Those are the people who are going to resolve the problem with the cop, whether that problem is a lack of training, discipline, or an excess of job.
Sadly, this kind of article presupposes that everyone is treated equally in the eyes of the police, and in the eyes of the justice system. Obviously, we know that this is untrue. The numbers of documented cases of fabricated evidence, falsified reports, trumped up charges against black people are too numerous to turn a blind eye to for all but the most hard hearted. This story alone would certainly make me leery of cops if I were black.
"Cops deploy their training and their intuition creatively[...] Every day cops show similar restraint and resolve incidents that could easily end up in serious injuries or worse." "Creatively"
I have spent all morning on reddit and just want to say ,I miss you guys.
I know, there's no pun threads in serious discussions here. Thank God.
It is the absence of people who think they can win conversations.
Wow. I could've sworn this was a piece by The Onion. Holy fuck.
Associating academia and "homeland security" seems somewhat of a juxtaposition to me.Sunil Dutta, a professor of homeland security...
I actually think this could be a good thing. I believe we can academically gather intelligence in a transparent and accountable way. Think about cryptography and ciphers. In the old days, the way we hid things from each other was by just hiding how we did things. Now we have ways to make algorithms publishable and have things peer reviewed before we accept them as secure, then hide private keys. The fact that others know how you encrypt actually does not undermine the security of the algorithm. Now we have issues where it seems that no matter what, we cite national security at supposedly fair trials to prevent the public knowing methods of discovering information. I don't know how it would work, but I think we can change the way intelligence is gathered so that everyone knows exactly how it is gathered without impacting the quality of the data gathered. I'm not talking about wiretapping trunk lines like the NSA is doing, I'm talking about something just as effective but entirely morally acceptable and transparent. People would be accountable for their actions when performing the intelligence gathering and could easily be prosecuted if they stray from the legal standards. How would we achieve such a thing? Academic research into "homeland security" or something similar.