Police Reform Thread

[cgeorg]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html

Disgusting. Multiple victims under 18, but he gets to plea to charges that get him 1 year of jail, and he doesn't have to register as a sex offender. DA should be ashamed of itself.

[hsilman]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... t-hear-you

Tragicomedy.

Also, has anyone seen "The Confessions Tapes" yet? Wife & I could only barely sit through the first episode. I have never been so angry at a show in my entire life. It took all my willpower to not break my TV at multiple points.

I don't think I can watch the rest, especially because my wife is like "yes this is upsetting, but it's all about false confessions so it's ok because it has a happy ending".

Nope. I don't know if I can watch the rest.

[DirtyRed]

Violence isn't bad. Doing bad shit violently is bad. Violence, in itself, is a great way to protect one's shit from people who want to take it without asking, and a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Asshole, I mean violence that is not (A) done in the act of actual self defense (B) voluntarily engaged in by dimwit sportsball players.

It's hard to tell with you some times, especially when you say things like this:

Really, we shouldn't be okay with any violence.

I'm not sure how, but this makes you a Statist.

If A attacks B for his wallet and B defends himself violently, the world is still a worse place because the entire encounter happened. Yeah, we say B was justified, in that we're not going to punish him for defending himself. But the idea that violence in self defense is some kind of Good is the same kind of wrong headed thinking that says rebuilding Florida after a hurricane is good for the economy. What we'd rather is the whole thing didn't happen at all.

Sure, the world is Best Off if A doesn't attack B in the first place. BUT, given that A has attacked B, the world is best off from that point if B successfully defends himself. The priority is the defense of B's property rights that are an extension of his ownership of himself and his time. Attacking him for his wallet is a violation of basic human rights in the same way slavery is, in that it deprives B of the rights to his labor and the results of it. Society is worse off if A gets away with the wallet, because now A has the money that B earned ostensibly by providing value to someone else somewhere, which means that Parasite A gets that influence over the market that Valuable Person B.

Also, given that this was a deliberate and malicious attack, there is no way B is getting the wallet back without at least a credible threat of immediate violence. That A might learn a lesson from an asswhooping, and that a higher chance of getting injured or killed in an attempted robbery objectively deters robbers (arguing otherwise is to argue that people will do MORE of something the higher the cost of that action is), is just a bonus.

If B pulls chrome (<-How hip kids talk these days) and tells A to give the wallet back, and A complies, then there is no worthwhile benefit in shooting or otherwise violencing A. If A manages to take off with the wallet, and B gets it back a week later, A should be required to compensate B for the week B didn't have access to his money in the wallet (and, really, his driver's license, credit cards, and so on).

That A didn't ultimately benefit in any way, and possibly came out in the red from having to pay additional restitution to B, discourages A from re-offending and others from trying in the first place about as much as realistically possible. If people are STILL going to try, given that there is a high risk of defensive violence applied to their face, and no benefit, there's really not shit you can do to further deter them.

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

Sure, but apprehending A is necessarily going to require at least a threat of violence.

[hsilman]

Violence isn't bad. Doing bad shit violently is bad. Violence, in itself, is a great way to protect one's shit from people who want to take it without asking, and a fun way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

Asshole, I mean violence that is not (A) done in the act of actual self defense (B) voluntarily engaged in by dimwit sportsball players.

It's hard to tell with you some times, especially when you say things like this:

Really, we shouldn't be okay with any violence.

I'm not sure how, but this makes you a Statist.

If A attacks B for his wallet and B defends himself violently, the world is still a worse place because the entire encounter happened. Yeah, we say B was justified, in that we're not going to punish him for defending himself. But the idea that violence in self defense is some kind of Good is the same kind of wrong headed thinking that says rebuilding Florida after a hurricane is good for the economy. What we'd rather is the whole thing didn't happen at all.

Sure, the world is Best Off if A doesn't attack B in the first place. BUT, given that A has attacked B, the world is best off from that point if B successfully defends himself. The priority is the defense of B's property rights that are an extension of his ownership of himself and his time. Attacking him for his wallet is a violation of basic human rights in the same way slavery is, in that it deprives B of the rights to his labor and the results of it. Society is worse off if A gets away with the wallet, because now A has the money that B earned ostensibly by providing value to someone else somewhere, which means that Parasite A gets that influence over the market that Valuable Person B.

Also, given that this was a deliberate and malicious attack, there is no way B is getting the wallet back without at least a credible threat of immediate violence. That A might learn a lesson from an asswhooping, and that a higher chance of getting injured or killed in an attempted robbery objectively deters robbers (arguing otherwise is to argue that people will do MORE of something the higher the cost of that action is), is just a bonus.

If B pulls chrome (<-How hip kids talk these days) and tells A to give the wallet back, and A complies, then there is no worthwhile benefit in shooting or otherwise violencing A. If A manages to take off with the wallet, and B gets it back a week later, A should be required to compensate B for the week B didn't have access to his money in the wallet (and, really, his driver's license, credit cards, and so on).

That A didn't ultimately benefit in any way, and possibly came out in the red from having to pay additional restitution to B, discourages A from re-offending and others from trying in the first place about as much as realistically possible. If people are STILL going to try, given that there is a high risk of defensive violence applied to their face, and no benefit, there's really not shit you can do to further deter them.

If on the other hand, A attacks B and gets away with the wallet, only to be apprehended later, what good comes from tying A to a pole and beating him? B is no better off; beating A doesn't heal B's injuries or replace his property. The original violence having happened and passed into history, all we can do now is add to the total violence and suffering in the world.

Sure, but apprehending A is necessarily going to require at least a threat of violence.

This is quite possibly the most polite post I've ever seen you make. You didn't even really insult mikey for his views, and tried to basically coop your agreement with him.

what the hell is going on here?

[mikeylikey]

<stuff>

DR have you read any Kinsella? He is, to my mind, the clearest thinker out there on property rights and violence. You should give him a look.

[aurelius]

<stuff>

DR have you read any Kinsella? He is, to my mind, the clearest thinker out there on property rights and violence. You should give him a look.

This Johnny Depp impersonator is the clearest thinker on property rights and violence? We are fucked.

[DirtyRed]

[snip]

This is quite possibly the most polite post I've ever seen you make. You didn't even really insult mikey for his views, and tried to basically coop your agreement with him.

what the hell is going on here?

Now, I can't have you slandering my good name. I totally called him a Statist because he is a bump bitch that has moral hangups over using violence to solve his problems and then justify it ethically ex post facto.

<stuff>

DR have you read

HA

any Kinsella? He is, to my mind, the clearest thinker out there on property rights and violence. You should give him a look.

Does he mostly agree with me or is he wrong?

[mikeylikey]

It's only fair to point out when they get it right:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ntent=2038

[Allentown]

Head of the MI State police has been in the news for posting on FB that the NFL players protesting are degenerates. Will see how this shakes out. The Gov has said he won't fire her.

[cwd]

It's only fair to point out when they get it right:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ntent=2038

Bravo.

[DirtyRed]

Head of the MI State police has been in the news for posting on FB that the NFL players protesting are degenerates. Will see how this shakes out. The Gov has said he won't fire her.

Considering they play for the Lions, she's probably right.

[mikeylikey]

It's only fair to point out when they get it right:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ntent=2038

Bravo.

Yes, I deserve this commendation for my even-handedness. Thank you. Thank you.

[strega]

Sorta feels a little hollow without MEH and Strega in here.

My God a month later and am I just seeing this thread for the first time?

God Lord, it’s a month later and I’ve now just seen this thread. Actually, I’m very misunderstood on my position on these situations. I have the highest respect for the law as an abstract concept on paper, as an ideal to run a society. A high respect that rules and order create structure. At the same time I think there are an awful lot of LE that are just thugs with badges. Yet if a thug with a badge takes an unpopular action the question is always was it within the law or not. If was not crush the bitch. If was within the law but you believe it to be unfair, change the damn law. Sorry I was so late to this party.

[mikeylikey]

Sorry I was so late to this party.

Finally! Let the arguments commence!

[perman]

Yeah, but does your job involve carrying a gun, the ability to take away the freedom and property of others, and what is practically license to kill black dudes without having to face jail?

Being a cop is an associates-degree or 12-week training-course sort of job.

The people who start this career didn't give up a chance to be a veterinarian or college professor.
Their alternatives were jobs like HVAC technician, auto mechanic, or LP nurse.

Now if we upped the pay and set higher standards, we could make being a cop comparable to being an RN nurse, electrical engineer, or high school teacher.
We could have an all-middle-class police force. We could have middle-class levels of professionalism.

But right now, we have a mostly blue-collar police force. That has consequences.

It's a bachelor's degree here in Norway btw, though that has it's own pitfalls. Police presence is far lower, and they are less warriors and more administrators (pussies), Breivik probably would have been better handled by American police for instance, but whether that is worth more brutal, confrontational cops in general is a different issue.

A factoid that gets thrown around here is that while deescalation is what police spend large amounts of time learning here, you spend your short training time learning how to act with guns. Not sure how accurate that is, but it sounds true when they don't usually wear guns.

[bugbomb]

Yet if a thug with a badge takes an unpopular action the question is always was it within the law or not. If was not crush the bitch. If was within the law but you believe it to be unfair, change the damn law. Sorry I was so late to this party.

Something something legal concentration camps. Argle bargle Nuremberg.

[strega]

Something something legal concentration camps. Argle bargle Nuremberg.

Did not peg you as a Scalia fan.

[fishwife]

Breivik probably would have been better handled by American police for instance

Yeah, if only the Vegas shooting had happened in Ameri-- wait

I will point out that a lone wolf mass murder on a remote island in circumstances in which nobody at all expects such a thing to happen is precisely the kind of thing that law enforcement is always going to be shitty at stopping/preventing whether we give them tanks and free license to shoot innocent people or not.

I'll go with the notion that maybe a society that produces largely "administrative (pussies)" police officers is much better at not having mass shootings.

[mikeylikey]

I will point out that a lone wolf mass murder on a remote island in circumstances in which nobody at all expects such a thing to happen is precisely the kind of thing that law enforcement is always going to be shitty at stopping/preventing whether we give them tanks and free license to shoot innocent people or not.

Is it a Coconut Island?

I'll go with the notion that maybe a society that produces largely "administrative (pussies)" police officers is much better at not having mass shootings.

Out of here with your #fakenews talk of confounding variables.

[strega]

I'll go with the notion that maybe a society that produces largely "administrative (pussies)" police officers is much better at not having mass shootings.

I wish it was that simple. Both the US and Norway have a deep history of a gun culture. Norway culture focuses on hunting and marksmanship. The US culture has that but also an element based on insecurity. The idea is that if Tony Montana breaks in my home I'll be able to take him out regardless of what he brings to the game. It's a spirit of one-upmanship that feeds upon itself. We have more guns than people and a lot of people don't own guns so do the math.