Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem • Hacker News Board

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#151

Post by DamnYuppie » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 1:44 PM UTC

vectorpush wrote: post #52

DamnYuppie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incident in Texas in only shocking when one considers the slanted reporting that the media is doing. Those kids were trespassing, were violent with minors, and flatly refused to listen to police officers. The reporting of this is nothing more then a propaganda piece. We have large populations of minorities who feel entitled to behave badly without any consequence because the color of their skin.

From what I've read, most of the teens were invited by another teen who lived in the community (including the one who was slammed to the ground for mouthing off to the cop). Apparently, some additional teens who were not invited showed up which is what prompted someone to call the police but when this particular officer arrived on scene he didn't attempt to distinguish between teens who were invited and teens who wer…

That is not what happened. First there were more then a "few" uninvited teens. Many of them jumped over the fence. They were being aggressive the young children who were there. They were not heading the warnings of adults. There was more then one police office there and they weren't subduing everyone in site. This incident occurred because the "victim" in question was aggressive and unresponsive to the police officers commands. Yet that portion of the video "some how" didn't make it onto the main stream media.

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#152

Post by DamnYuppie » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 1:47 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #19

DamnYuppie wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incident in Texas in only shocking when one considers the slanted reporting that the media is doing. Those kids were trespassing, were violent with minors, and flatly refused to listen to police officers. The reporting of this is nothing more then a propaganda piece. We have large populations of minorities who feel entitled to behave badly without any consequence because the color of their skin.

I was right there with you until your last sentence veered off into racist territory.

Stating a group of people has entitlement issues isn't Racist. Racism is denying people the ability to do something based on their race. I am not denying anyone access to anything. I am simply stating that I see an issue with how allowing people to continually play the race card emboldens them to believe there are no consequences to their actions.

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#153

Post by grkvlt » Fri, Jun 12, 2015, 11:54 PM UTC

curun1r wrote: post #106

dmfdmf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Beyond how they look, it's like they're at times forgetting these are citizens and not enemy combatants. This can't be stressed enough. What needs to be stopped is the false distinction of civilian vs non-civilian in police work and policy. That is strictly a military distinction in combat and does not apply to civilized enforcement of the law during normal circumstances. Cops are not above the law and are just civ…

It's also important to continually remind citizens that police officers are human beings too and not just implements the state uses to punish people. Stuff like a program a local police department started in cooperation with a local pizzeria where they stop children who are properly wearing helmets while riding their bicycles and give them a coupon for a free personal pizza and a thank you for doing the right thing.…

ObOffTopic:

> children [...] properly wearing helmets while riding their bicycles [given a] thank you for doing the right thing

So, children who are not wearing helmets then? I don't really get the strange idea that wearing helmets makes children safer on bikes. I grew up riding bicycles without a helmet, much as everyone else did, and has done since bicycles were invented. There were no cases (nor reports or warnings) of traumatic head injury due to lack of protection reported, to a good first order approximation. And even the statistically minor numebr of head injuries sustained by children on bikes has remained exactly that after the increase in helmet wearing. Research indicates there is no benefit provided by helmet wearing, and suggests it may even increase risky behaviour. [citation needed]

It's quite hard to find data on children only, as it happens, but the following quote gives the picture overall: "However, the Statistics Bulletin shows the UK cyclist casualty figure was 16,196 in 2006 compared to 16,297 in 2008 - an increase of about half a percent. For all road users, casualties fell from 258,404 in 2006 to 230,905 in 2008 - a reduction of 11.9%. During this period, helmet wearing increased by 3.6%." So no change in casualties with an increase in helmet wearing. This is borne out by other reports, and in general mandatory helmet wearing is discouraged as a net public health loss due to dimished cycling, causing less exercise and therefore a less healthy population.

Parents today, eh? Get those helmet wearing kids off my lawn! Thanks for listening ;)

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#154

Post by grkvlt » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 12:04 AM UTC

beat wrote: post #44

A grown man chases a bikini-clad 14 year old girl. He grabs her by the hair and hurls her to the ground. He pins her down, with his knee bearing his full weight down on her bare back. He draws his gun. Does this make you uncomfortable? Can you picture this girl as your sister, or your daughter? Think about the real world consequences of warrior policing. This doesn't sound like keeping the peace. It sounds like a chi…

Depends. Did this actually happen? What has the girl done? Did she just kill someone? Has she just bitten someone's ear off? Context is everything... Maybe the police officer now has nightmares about ear-eating fourteen year old bikini clad girls, and can never have a proper releationship, due to this emotional scarring? If your sister or daughter went completely crazy, and had or was going to hurt herself and others, then of course you want someone to physically restrain her, before something worse happens...

So, yes - if she deserved it, then I absolutely want to be the kind of person who makes that excuse!

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#155

Post by knodi123 » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

DamnYuppie wrote: post #152

knodi123 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was right there with you until your last sentence veered off into racist territory.

Stating a group of people has entitlement issues isn't Racist. Racism is denying people the ability to do something based on their race. I am not denying anyone access to anything. I am simply stating that I see an issue with how allowing people to continually play the race card emboldens them to believe there are no consequences to their actions.

You're right, it was less racism than bigotry. Stating that a whole race of people has an entitlement issue is bigoted.

Why not just say "blacks", anyway? Everone knows what we're talking about here, but if you say "blacks have an entitlement issue", it's harder to pretend that you're not a bigot.

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#156

Post by knodi123 » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 4:47 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #116

knodi123 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was right there with you until your last sentence veered off into racist territory.

Racism is stating a superiority of one race over another. The last sentence was controversial, at worst an overgeneralization, but not racist. Can we please stop this politically correct nonsense of calling any controversial comment involving race racist?

To say that "black people" have an entitlement problem, and not "all people", is to imply that this is a flaw that non-blacks do not share, or at least to a much lesser degree.

And buddy, that is implying the superiority of one race over another. Which is racist.

Re: Law Enforcement’s “Warrior” Problem

#157

Post by ancap » Tue, Jun 16, 2015, 11:29 PM UTC

knodi123 wrote: post #156

ancap wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism is stating a superiority of one race over another. The last sentence was controversial, at worst an overgeneralization, but not racist. Can we please stop this politically correct nonsense of calling any controversial comment involving race racist?

To say that "black people" have an entitlement problem, and not "all people", is to imply that this is a flaw that non-blacks do not share, or at least to a much lesser degree. And buddy, that is implying the superiority of one race over another. Which is racist.

So you're saying that you implied something from the parent comment and that by further implying from your first implication led you to believe the OP was racist?

Do you also find it racist when prominent black people criticize what they term "entitlement" problems amongst blacks? (Not that the OP specifically mentioned "black people" but I want to follow your line of reasoning.)