UCLA student tasered by police (2 Viewers)

[swag]

But Vinman has a point here. What I've seen in this thread so far are a mere handful of targeted articles as if to support the commentary surrounding these posts where posters rant that "cops are corrupt", "fvck cops", "another abuse of authority", etc.

And although you may not believe the steretypes yourself, Graham (and I don't believe you do), the fact that this thread is being kept alive by these occasional one-off articles just belabors the point and seems to add fuel to the fire of that one-dimensional thinking.

Cops deal on a daily basis with far more scumbags, wife-beaters, and scam artists than most of us will thankfully encounter in a year. And to presume that slapping a badge on someone suddenly makes them ethically and judgementally infallible requires a very ill-informed and juvenile view of the world and the morality of man. (Just as putting on a priest's collar doesn't remove the human capacity for sin.) You obviously get that -- and the false assumptions that come from "making the data fit the model" (in scientific speak) when you let the actions of 1% speak for the other 99%.

I don't think people are outraged because, in the case of cops or priests, it's a matter of abuse of trust and influence... or even authority. I fundamentally think people place higher ethical standards on others in those positions than they would ever consider placing on themselves. I honestly believe there are probably just as high a percentage of kiddie diddlers in elected government as there is in the Catholic priesthood (we've seen the front page stories). However, priests are expected to be infallible messengers of God (barely human), whereas people in government are expected to be shady and slimy characters to begin with -- so they don't receive the same level of outrage, despite having far more influence and authority.

Not saying that we need some balanced coverage of cops rescuing cats from trees here. But you can't help but create a climate of bias and stereotyping with the way things have been handled here. If someone started a thread about some inner city blacks arrested in some drug bust shootout, and then it was followed up with the dribble of the latest news clip du jour about some black person caught dealing drugs, I think there would be far less tolerance and greater recognition of how quickly that becomes unacceptable.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Vinman]

But Vinman has a point here. What I've seen in this thread so far are a mere handful of targeted articles as if to support the commentary surrounding these posts where posters rant that "cops are corrupt", "fvck cops", "another abuse of authority", etc.

And although you may not believe the steretypes yourself, Graham (and I don't believe you do), the fact that this thread is being kept alive by these occasional one-off articles just belabors the point and seems to add fuel to the fire of that one-dimensional thinking.

Cops deal on a daily basis with far more scumbags, wife-beaters, and scam artists than most of us will thankfully encounter in a year. And to presume that slapping a badge on someone suddenly makes them ethically and judgementally infallible requires a very ill-informed and juvenile view of the world and the morality of man. (Just as putting on a priest's collar doesn't remove the human capacity for sin.) You obviously get that -- and the false assumptions that come from "making the data fit the model" (in scientific speak) when you let the actions of 1% speak for the other 99%.

I don't think people are outraged because, in the case of cops or priests, it's a matter of abuse of trust and influence... or even authority. I fundamentally think people place higher ethical standards on others in those positions than they would ever consider placing on themselves. I honestly believe there are probably just as high a percentage of kiddie diddlers in elected government as there is in the Catholic priesthood (we've seen the front page stories). However, priests are expected to be infallible messengers of God (barely human), whereas people in government are expected to be shady and slimy characters to begin with -- so they don't receive the same level of outrage, despite having far more influence and authority.

Not saying that we need some balanced coverage of cops rescuing cats from trees here. But you can't help but create a climate of bias and stereotyping with the way things have been handled here. If someone started a thread about some inner city blacks arrested in some drug bust shootout, and then it was followed up with the dribble of the latest news clip du jour about some black person caught dealing drugs, I think there would be far less tolerance and greater recognition of how quickly that becomes unacceptable.

+ rep

 

[Enron]

Well said Greg.

 

[Martin]

I think you're missing the point, Greg. This thread isn't about "documenting" the life of cops, it's not a Career Day initiative to show everyone what it's like to be a cop. Some of the articles posted here are cases where "we" (not that I speak for anyone here) feel seriously disturbed and concerned about those particular incidents. You can call it cop hating all you want, that's just mudding the issue. The fact is that with power comes responsibility and if you have the power to beat up people, then you can be damn sure that people will be upset if you abuse that power. Just like soldiers are not supposed to kill for fun even though they can.

And if you can't be a cop without letting that power corrupt you, then you shouldn't be one. Just like you shouldn't be a president, or a pope, or even a forum moderator. I understand how Vin is sensitive about this, but "we" are not accusing him of anything. "Power corrupts, news at eleven." you would read on slashdot, but it's a serious issue and even though it's obvious, it still needs to be said. People here are saying exactly what they would say if they were interviewed on tv or writing an article in the paper or drafting ethical guidelines for the police department.

And if you think media is sensationalist, well "news at elevent". It's certainly true that media makes a meal out of things and that a litigation happy nation will take any event as a precedent for a lawsuit (especially given favorable media coverage). But that still gives everyone a chance to call it as they see it, just as we all have done. In other words, if you base your convictions on what it is cops do and how they do it solely on this thread, you're an idiot.

Frankly I'm more concerned with unnecessary violence than cops being shown in a bad light, I think one concern takes precedence over another.

 

[Enron]

What is everyone all upset about? If it weren't for these events we wouldn't get Tased and Confused on COPS.

 

[swag]

I don't know, Martin. Bad cops exist and abuse use of a taser? Wow -- just how freaked out should I be about the fact that police recruitment isn't 100% foolproof? We have kids in labor camps, government-sponsored torture and killings, systematic rape and exploitation by war lords, the sex slave trade of minors, and I'm supposed to be outraged because a few cops are trigger happy with tasers?

Not that it's unimportant by any means. But as a matter of perspective, I think a little proportion is in order when we consider what we are seriously disturbed and concerned about.

 

[Martin]

I don't know, Martin. Bad cops exist and abuse use of a taser? Wow -- just how freaked out should I be about the fact that police recruitment isn't 100% foolproof? We have kids in labor camps, government-sponsored torture and killings, systematic rape and exploitation by war lords, the sex slave trade of minors, and I'm supposed to be outraged because a few cops are trigger happy with tasers.

But those stories make it to the papers as well, or at least other outrages do. I'm sure there's a lot of things that don't make it through the filters (particularly the government sponsored bits), but if we don't know about them, why would we be outraged? I don't know where this story originated, but it was all over the place, I saw it on reddit's frontpage myself. And I suspect that was the case becasue the people who voted on it (and passed it around) felt that it concerned them in a very direct way, being students themselves. Other stories get good coverage too and I've posted lots of stories on this site myself, most of which were probably never read or noticed. And I'm not suggesting this one is more important than the rest, just that this one seems to unite people, so why not start here and at least talk about what we're all interested in (which we did).

Aside from that, there are big problems and small problems. You could say this one is relatively small in the grand scheme of things, nevertheless it matters.

 

[swag]

The difference is, Martin, that I think there's a tendency in some people -- and perhaps a lot of people -- to be more outraged about a rogue cop with a taser than an African government that systematically terrorizes and exploits certain ethnic groups.

You only need look at the YouTube discussion threads and video popularity counts to notice that much... or reddits for that matter.

Good that it gets addressed and discussed, of course. But I find it disheartening myself that there seems to be a human tendency to obsess more over the stories of less consequence... much as you are disheartened by people who could be so callous as to say some tasered kid "deserved it". It's a distant cousin to the "missing white woman syndrome", IMO. Or, as The Daily Show put it:

MinutesofCoverage = FamilyIncome * (AbducteeCuteness / SkinColor)^2 + LengthofAbduction * MediaSavvyofGrievingParents^3

 

[Martin]

Greg, you're an idealist

There are two points here. For one thing, people get more excited about these kinds of things, because they feel it's close to them. A cop using excessive force, it's not so far fetched. I happen to live about 100m from a police headquarters and so I see plenty of police around my neighborhood. And you know what goes through my mind when I see them on the street? "I hope they don't notice I'm riding my bike after dark without lights" and "I hope they don't know notice I'm crossing the street where I'm not supposed to". (Have mercy, Vin.) Because that's what people get in trouble for here and I'm afraid of getting a fine for my "reckless" bicycle habits. But if they did decide to pull me over for whatever reason, I'm right there facing them and so when you see a cop beat up a guy on the street, you're thinking "I'm glad that's not me". "I'm glad the cops I ran into were competent professionals, rather than some nut on a power trip". When in Poland, every cop seems to wear a piece. It's not that I check, but I often see it. In Norway they can only do that if it's some kind of special case that requires it, normal cops on traffic patrol don't have guns, why would they? But it's not just cops who have guns in Poland, security guards do too. Or rather security "personnel" whose business I'm guessing is mostly transport of cash. Or maybe safeguarding special interests. These guys are not cops, they are cops for hire. Of course, the presence of guns doesn't exactly make me feel safe, but here too I'm thinking "I'm glad these guys are competent [which is just an assumption I choose to feel safe], otherwise I would be very anxious to get out of here asap". I'm right in the middle of it.

Now, when you hear about a corrupt government in Africa, how do you feel about that? I've never been to Africa, my knowledge of the continent as a whole approximates zero and while it would be nice to deeply care about what goes on there, it's not my day-to-day concern. Maybe it should be, but it's not. In any case, it's not as up close and personal as a rogue cop. And people probably don't think they could do anything about it if they really wanted to. To do something about it, you have to know a lot about it. If you don't know anything, you can't do anything. And anyway, it's there, it's not here. It's not a good reason, but it's a common excuse, right?


And the second point is about coverage. If it's not covered, it's not on people's minds. The media has very accurate rules and metrics for what they publicize, and that becomes our agenda, or at least most people's agenda. Even if you reject that and establish your own, who are you going to talk to about it? Everyone is wrapped up in this media created world that they talk about. I don't think it's our innate tendency to care more about petty things (even though petty things are things much easier for us to grasp), I think if the media did a fair choice of let's say the biggest humanitarian crises in the world today and gave us that, we would be equally poised to discuss it. Coming back to what I said about easy-to-understand, that is a pretty important point, because to explain the reasons for let's say Nigeria's social/economic situation would take a few hours (chxta could pitch in), but to criticize one action that can be reduced to one cause is easy, it doesn't require people to have read the same books or have the same background, it's a very low threshold discussion.

 

[Vinman]

Greg, you're an idealist

There are two points here. For one thing, people get more excited about these kinds of things, because they feel it's close to them. A cop using excessive force, it's not so far fetched. I happen to live about 100m from a police headquarters and so I see plenty of police around my neighborhood. And you know what goes through my mind when I see them on the street? "I hope they don't notice I'm riding my bike after dark without lights" and "I hope they don't know notice I'm crossing the street where I'm not supposed to". (Have mercy, Vin.) Because that's what people get in trouble for here and I'm afraid of getting a fine for my "reckless" bicycle habits. But if they did decide to pull me over for whatever reason, I'm right there facing them and so when you see a cop beat up a guy on the street, you're thinking "I'm glad that's not me". "I'm glad the cops I ran into were competent professionals, rather than some nut on a power trip". When in Poland, every cop seems to wear a piece. It's not that I check, but I often see it. In Norway they can only do that if it's some kind of special case that requires it, normal cops on traffic patrol don't have guns, why would they? But it's not just cops who have guns in Poland, security guards do too. Or rather security "personnel" whose business I'm guessing is mostly transport of cash. Or maybe safeguarding special interests. These guys are not cops, they are cops for hire. Of course, the presence of guns doesn't exactly make me feel safe, but here too I'm thinking "I'm glad these guys are competent [which is just an assumption I choose to feel safe], otherwise I would be very anxious to get out of here asap". I'm right in the middle of it.

Now, when you hear about a corrupt government in Africa, how do you feel about that? I've never been to Africa, my knowledge of the continent as a whole approximates zero and while it would be nice to deeply care about what goes on there, it's not my day-to-day concern. Maybe it should be, but it's not. In any case, it's not as up close and personal as a rogue cop. And people probably don't think they could do anything about it if they really wanted to. To do something about it, you have to know a lot about it. If you don't know anything, you can't do anything. And anyway, it's there, it's not here. It's not a good reason, but it's a common excuse, right?


And the second point is about coverage. If it's not covered, it's not on people's minds. The media has very accurate rules and metrics for what they publicize, and that becomes our agenda, or at least most people's agenda. Even if you reject that and establish your own, who are you going to talk to about it? Everyone is wrapped up in this media created world that they talk about. I don't think it's our innate tendency to care more about petty things (even though petty things are things much easier for us to grasp), I think if the media did a fair choice of let's say the biggest humanitarian crises in the world today and gave us that, we would be equally poised to discuss it. Coming back to what I said about easy-to-understand, that is a pretty important point, because to explain the reasons for let's say Nigeria's social/economic situation would take a few hours (chxta could pitch in), but to criticize one action that can be reduced to one cause is easy, it doesn't require people to have read the same books or have the same background, it's a very low threshold discussion.

first off, you are worried about getting a fine by not following bicycle laws, well I guess you know the answer to that...follow the laws Martin !!! I seriously doubt you would catch a beating for something so trivial...

Police in Norway dont have guns ??? I wouldnt want to be a police officer there...you might as well put a big bullseye on your back. Please dont tell me that gun violence, or any other violent crime doesnt happen there

 

[Martin]

first off, you are worried about getting a fine by not following bicycle laws, well I guess you know the answer to that...follow the laws Martin !!! I seriously doubt you would catch a beating for something so trivial...

No, but failing to show a student id is even less trivial. My point was that if I'm dealing with the cops for whatever reason, then I'm feeling their presence right here and now. Whereas I don't feel the presence of the corrupt African government in Greg's analogy.

And well the reason I bike the way I do is because I like it. It's more than just logistics, it's fun. And while I believe I'm not endangering anyone by crossing the street outside of the marked crossing with absolutely no traffic there, or crossing against a red light where everyone is waiting for a green light, I don't feel like I need to be told in detail how to do the simplest thing. Incidentally, I biked the same way for 18 years in Norway and never got in trouble once for it, the regulations here are a lot more petty. Anyway, that's really not the issue here.

Police in Norway dont have guns ??? I wouldnt want to be a police officer there...you might as well put a big bullseye on your back. Please dont tell me that gun violence, or any other violent crime doesnt happen there

Sure there's crime. A few years ago there was an especially violent bank robbery in Stavanger, where a cop was killed trying to prevent it. The case was very loud and eventually I think all the suspects were convicted on pretty long sentences.

But a traffic cop who pulls over a guy for speeding doesn't need a gun, because the guy who was speeding doesn't have a gun. And a cop walking the beat at night dealing with homeless people or drug addicts doesn't need a gun, because those people don't have guns either. We don't have a gun culture in Norway, people don't have guns. All they have are hunting weapons (and it's not really that common), because hunting is a tradition. We don't have paragraphs in the constitution about "protecting ourselves" with guns. And it's not legal to shoot a person in your house for being in your house. So why would cops need them?

 

[swag]

"All news is local", as they say.

Even so, you have to admit that some priest across the country getting caught with a schoolboy will receive more outrage than, say, the local congressman caught with the page. That's not about personal relevancy as much as it is about holding people to different standards.

I am still dumbfounded that parents who send their kids off to college are shocked to learn that there is this thing called campus crime ... as if a kid paying college tuition gains immunity from human frailty and bad behavior. Or that people are so appalled that looting and crime can happen after a disaster (and, in actuality, crime rates typically drop following a distaster -- they just don't zero out).

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

Good post, and i agree about the college student thing.

I've done more stupid semi-criminal things with my friends on college campuses than I've done ever before.

 

[Martin]

Even so, you have to admit that some priest across the country getting caught with a schoolboy will receive more outrage than, say, the local congressman caught with the page. That's not about personal relevancy as much as it is about holding people to different standards.

You keep saying that as if there were something wrong with it. I don't think it's a mistake to condemn a priest for abuses against children more strongly than that say of a teacher or cashier. Priests present a much greater authority, they "get away with" saying things like if you don't repent you're going to hell. And we allow this, because we think they should have this authority, sponsored by god. So if they commit this crime, with all their moral sanctity, it is all the more condemnable, because they are supposed to set the example.

I think if you're in a position of authority, whatever that function may be, and people obey you or take your advice about how to live their life, then you absolutely should be held to a higher standard, because you have the greater influence. If a moderator who spends the whole year breaking up fights and lecturing people on mutual respect flies off the handle and starts flaming, isn't that worse than just a regular member who never tried to tell people what to do?

 

[Slagathor]

Martin, do you happen to know if bicycle cops have guns on them? I know every other type of cop does (even though their legal options of using it are limited depending on their rank) but I don't see many bicycle cops down south... They like to use motorcycles cause of the distances.

 

[Martin]

Martin, do you happen to know if bicycle cops have guns on them? I know every other type of cop does (even though their legal options of using it are limited depending on their rank) but I don't see many bicycle cops down south... They like to use motorcycles cause of the distances.

I think they do, yeah. It seems completely pointless to me, and I don't think they use them for anything ever, but it's part of their "job" in that whatever position you have in the police, it's custom/tradition/whatever to have a gun. In that sense, Norway is more conservative and pragmatic about it.

 

[Slagathor]

I think they do, yeah. It seems completely pointless to me, and I don't think they use them for anything ever, but it's part of their "job" in that whatever position you have in the police, it's custom/tradition/whatever to have a gun. In that sense, Norway is more conservative and pragmatic about it.

Yeah Holland gets hypocritical. They can wear guns so they're capable of defending themselves but (depending on ranks) they can't actually use them most of the time. This country is one big compromise.

 

[JCK]

How come in certain countries some police officers don't wear guns yet the crime rate in these countries is less than other parts of the world? I guess it is communism that helps decrease the crime rate.

 

[Layce Erayce]

I think they do, yeah. It seems completely pointless to me, and I don't think they use them for anything ever, but it's part of their "job" in that whatever position you have in the police, it's custom/tradition/whatever to have a gun. In that sense, Norway is more conservative and pragmatic about it.

Its the speak-softly-and-carry-a-big-gun kinda thing. I mean, you go to some places in the US where a cop without a gun will get his ass beat. Maybe there just arent a lot of frustrated youth committing violent crime over in the Netherlands like there are in the US or the UK?

 

[Vinman]

How come in certain countries some police officers don't wear guns yet the crime rate in these countries is less than other parts of the world? I guess it is communism that helps decrease the crime rate.

sure, just look at China, North Korea, and Cuba....

if you defy their security forces, the best you can hope for is a real good beating

yep, communism is the answer !!!:rolleyes2