201–210 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are describing a crime. The solution to police committing crimes is police oversight, not neutering policing powers completely.
IMO the solution is asking why police need these powers in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are describing a crime. The solution to police committing crimes is police oversight, not neutering policing powers completely.
> The solution to police committing crimes is police oversight… Yeah, when we try that, they… commit more crimes. Riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Assoc... Doxxing the mayor's kid: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/twitter-suspends-account... Or even bombing the mayor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_San_Francisco_P... > The ACLU obtained a court order prohibiting strikers…
The policing arm of the executive branch can be difficult to manage, the point is once it leaves the purview of the state, it is impossible to manage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it is true that police have powers that can be abused, and police have abused them. It’s also true that they have those powers because we’ve decided the alternative is worse. The example used in the article was a case where police did not obviously abuse their authority. If you want to get me worked up about police overreach, you’ll need a different example. > I do not want to live in a world where random drones…
> It’s also true that they have those powers because we’ve decided the alternative is worse. I don't ever remembering getting the option to vote on whether my police department could use drones and surveillance tech or not. We can't possibly conclude that society has decided the alternative is worse – society never got a choice, the police departments are just spending their budgets on cool military shit and then goi…
When I drive on the freeway, any time a police car gets behind me and turns on its lights, I have to stop. If I don't stop, I can ultimately be charged with evading arrest, or fleeing police, or some similar offense. I can be fined and even put in jail, even if a judge decides that the officer didn't actually have a valid reason to stop me.
If a police officer approaches me (when I'm not in a car) and tells me that I'm under arrest, I don't have the legal permission to leave. Even if I know I didn't break any laws. Even if I happen to know why the officer wants to arrest me and I know that it's not a valid reason for an arrest.
Why? Why does the law require me to obey without question, especially when honest mistakes that I might make are treated very differently from honest mistakes the trained officer might make? Fundamentally, because we have decided that the alternative is worse.
Do officers abuse their authority? Of course they do. But we've decided that toothless police departments aren't worth anything (and, in fact, lead to more vigilantism and crime). And we've decided that "self help" solutions (e.g., giving people the right to violently resist arrest if the officer is in the wrong, while punishing people who resist valid arrests) are worse.
> The innocuous appearance of many of the videos raises questions about whether the surveillance was necessary. In one “auto boost/strip”-related call, the drone follows two young men in their car, at least one of whom is described in police records as having been identified as a “suspicious person in a vehicle.” Then the two men emerge onto a basketball court and start playing, and the drone departs. https://archive…
I mean, they evaluated and left? What should they have done, creeped on them as they played?
I’m sure most people have no problems with drones being used for hot pursuit, appending those charged with murder, etc; but this is highly advanced technology that deserves more scruinty and accountability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The solution to police committing crimes is police oversight… Yeah, when we try that, they… commit more crimes. Riots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Assoc... Doxxing the mayor's kid: https://nationalpost.com/news/world/twitter-suspends-account... Or even bombing the mayor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_San_Francisco_P... > The ACLU obtained a court order prohibiting strikers…
Again, you sound like someone who has never read an ounce of political philosophy. The policing of behavior will exist in any society, whether it is held by the state, the church, private security firms, organized crime, or vigilantes. The entire point of putting the police under the authority of a democratic public is because the alternatives are all much worse. The policing arm of the executive branch can be diffic…
Yes, I agree.
I just think we're in that "much worse" scenario now, with police unions, qualified immunity, pardons for brutality, and police punishing attempts to rein them in.
American cops are out of control, and emboldened by their success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, you sound like someone who has never read an ounce of political philosophy. The policing of behavior will exist in any society, whether it is held by the state, the church, private security firms, organized crime, or vigilantes. The entire point of putting the police under the authority of a democratic public is because the alternatives are all much worse. The policing arm of the executive branch can be diffic…
> The entire point of putting the police under the authority of a democratic public is because the alternatives are all much worse. Yes, I agree. I just think we're in that "much worse" scenario now , with police unions, qualified immunity, pardons for brutality, and police punishing attempts to rein them in. American cops are out of control, and emboldened by their success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The state should replace community” is an interesting take. What other powers should be added to the state? Should they cook our food too? Do you think there’s any downside to the government having these powers?
> Should they cook our food too? Unironically, also GP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46559004 > > The bad food is a plus. The most orderly civilizations generally have the blandest food. Almost all societies with good food are chaotic and disorderly. So yes, the state should probably take over cooking to maintain order!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should they cook our food too? Unironically, also GP: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46559004 > > The bad food is a plus. The most orderly civilizations generally have the blandest food. Almost all societies with good food are chaotic and disorderly. So yes, the state should probably take over cooking to maintain order!
The food doesn't cause the mindset; not caring about food is a consequence of the mindset.