If You Value The Reputation Of Your Restaurant, Maybe You Should Stop Serving Cops
from the time-to-start-kicking-against-the-pricks dept
Cops lie. This is a fact. As a business owner, it is in your best interest to oust known liars from your premises, if only for liability reasons. Sure, this will result in backlash from cop supporters, but so will the alternative.
Cops have placed themselves on a plateau of humanity far above their fellow citizens. Any perceived slight becomes a reason to drape themselves in an appropriated American flag and decry the masses for failing to show them the respect they feel they have no duty to earn.
There have been several reports of low-wage fast food employees saying and/or doing mean things to cops in their restaurants. Sometimes, these things have actually happened. What officers fail to understand is that most employees of restaurants have zero respect for a majority of their customers. Add a blue uniform and an air of sanctimoniousness, and cops can easily fly up the ranks of the disrespected.
But cops don't help their own case by lying about things that happened. And even if they're not outright lies, they're severe miscontruals of the actual events. In April of 2016, an officer claimed he was drugged by a Subway employee who supposedly spiked his soda as he went through the drive-thru. Drug tests of the drink and the cop cleared Subway and its employee of any wrongdoing. It also netted the accused teen -- who was arrested and charged -- a $50,000 payout from the city of Layton, Utah.
Roughly a year after that, a Raleigh (NC) police union's Facebook post -- accusing a local restaurant of serenading officers with N.W.A.'s "Fuck tha Police" -- went viral. A review of the restaurant's CCTV footage showed this never happened. An employee apparently mouthed the words at an officer from 25 feet away. That employee quit when the investigation began. The backlash only halted when the police department itself stepped up to say the union's post was full of shit.
Raleigh Police Department Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown [...] released a statement Wednesday concurring with the owner, David Harris, and his attorney Mark O’Mara.
[...]
On Wednesday, Deck-Brown said two officers saw one employee make eye contact with them and mouth the words “F--- the Police.”
“There was no singing. There were no other employees involved,” Deck-Brown said. “Because of the subtle nature of this act, it was not witnessed by anyone else in the store.”
After looking at video, Harris and O’Mara and others could find no evidence that employees were singing at the police or even speaking with them during the nearly half-hour they were in the restaurant.
The restaurant suffered severe reputational damage. Meanwhile, the police union refused to apologize for the lies it had posted to Facebook. The restaurant may have been cleared by the Chief of Police, but the union representing the lying cops who had fabricated a story about a cop-hating restaurant downplayed its own involvement in this debacle, stating only that not "all" of the info in its original post had been "accurate."
Now, there's this: a police officer who's apparently never consumed any spices and/or a burger grilled on a grill raised social media hell because he thought some cop-hating fast food worker screwed with his food.
A police officer's complaint that a fast food burger he ordered came sprinkled with dirt created a flame-broiled Facebook sensation Wednesday before an investigation found that a seasoning mix was the likely culprit.
Fort Myers police Officer Tim McCormick posted on Facebook about a meal he was recently served at the Burger King on Cleveland Avenue at Winkler Avenue. He said that the burger looked like it had dirt on it but didn't notice it until he was down to the last bite. He then tossed the sandwich.
18,000 Facebook shares later, Officer McCormick has deleted his post. But he has yet to offer his apology for being unable to identify substances present on almost all Burger King burgers.
Given the damage officers can do when they act before all the facts are in, why would any restaurant want their business? When officers are fabricating stories and misidentifying rare substances like, um... black pepper, why would any business owner want to serve such supremely risky customers?
Sure, not every cop is going to lodge a bullshit complaint because he didn't like how a restaurant employee eyeballed him during service, but why roll the dice? Officers and their unions can do an incredible amount of damage to small businesses in a short period of time. When the facts do come out, they simply delete posts and walk away from wreckage they've left behind without so much as an apology. And if they do find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit for their actions, it's the taxpayers left footing the bill -- a group of unwilling lenders that includes the same small business owners victimized by the officers' lies and exaggerations.
Play it safe, restaurant owners. Invite officers to start making their own meals at home where the only parties likely to receive collateral damage for food and service-based complaints will be officers' spouses and children. It just makes financial sense.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: lies, police, restaurants
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Two types of cops...
There are two types of cops...Bad cops...
...and those who allow them to continue being bad cops.
Ehud
P.S. The FBI interviewed me one morning because, among other things, I'd posted this comment on TechDirt previously. Yeah. That happened.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Only one problem with this suggestion....
1. Allow police patronage and maybe get victimized by officers' lies and exaggerations.
or
2. Don't allow police patronage and definitely get victimized by officers' exaggerations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
Pay the police sergeant weekly cash in brown paper bag — with the understanding that the rest of the cops will stay away the rest of the week.
That works in most big cities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
... at least on TV...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
The scriptwriters wouldn't make it into a Hollywood stereotype — if the folks watching at home didn't all understand it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
A lot of the 'knockout' blows you see action movie stars using on people are really killing blows -- try to knock someone out with one and you win a second degree murder charge.
Shooting guns at cars doesn't cause them to erupt into fireballs, and using car doors as cover is a good way to get shot.
There's plenty more like those, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
Oh, and bullet proof jackets just hold your body together; if you get shot, the impact will destroy your insides and kill you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
In reality, that means that up to that point, they were walking around with an unloaded gun, something no cop would ever do. But the slide rack is just oh so dramatic, so movie cops do it all the time.
And as mentioned, hiding behind car doors and other things that are easily penetrated by bullets is an extremely aggravating movie trope. It's particularly hilarious when a movie gunfight erupts and someone flips a table over and hides behind it. You might as well be hiding behind a sheet of newspaper for all the good that would do, yet the movie bullets ricochet off the table anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Only one problem with this suggestion....
But courts certainly will. Courts will continue even treat cops as "inherently trustworthy" even after proven otherwise (those damn lying video cameras).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Comment
The other night, my family and I were eating at a hamburger place-type family restaurant. Four cops came in to get their dinner. I was shocked to realize that I suddenly felt LESS safe, not more.
Restaurants aren't the only reputations cops have ruined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personal Comment
Just because there's been great media focus on any wrongdoings, or perceived wrongdoings, of cops, doesn't mean you aren't actually more safe.
I've had quite a few run-ins with cops, and in only one of those incidents was the cop at all unprofessional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal Comment
I imagine it is different for everyone, as in no two are alike, and therefore none of them will ever align - no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Personal Comment
I imagine it is different for everyone"
I would suggest you learn the difference between the words "objective" and "subjective", for a start.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Personal Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal Comment
> wrongdoings, or perceived wrongdoings, of cops, doesn't
> mean you aren't actually more safe.
Exactly.
It's the same reason everyone acts like you can't leave your kid alone for 10 seconds until he/she is 18 years old.
It's actually *far* safer to be a kid now than it was in the 'good old days' of the 50s & 60s. According to actual FBI stats, crimes against children across the board (assault, rape, murder, etc.) are a shadow of what they were back then, but the media's relentless hype of the few incidences that do occur have everyone acting as if there's a child rapist lurking behind every bush.
It's the same with the police. The media drives a narrative and everyone mindlessly adopts it regardless of the reality that you aren't objectively 'less safe' when a cop is eating the same restaurant with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Personal Comment
Btw, isn’t it time Cushing got his own “I hate cops” blog? His posts on a supposed tech site are just embarrassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Personal Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Personal Comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SoundsLikePropaganda
This article smacks of personal vendetta.
You don't like cops, fine.
Painting a broad brush of every cop as this article intimates is reckless and shows disregard for all the good cops out there doing their jobs everyday.
Let's take this narrative and apply it to others, say TechDirt and it's entire staff for this article conflating the actions of a few to all police, everywhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
Had a cop follow my car when my friends and I took the wrong road and ended up the wrong neighborhood. When I asked for directions, I got "You can take your pretty car to get your drugs somewhere else". They then proceeded to follow me to the edge of town.
On the Canadian border, I was asked what was in my trunk. When I said "nothing", the officer asked me to pop my trunk. When he saw nothing, he responded "get the fuck out of here".
At a crowded airport, my mom once asked a TSA agent if things are normally like this. He replied "nope, sometimes it gets busy".
You'll also notice the link toward the bottom of the article (dealing with domestic violence in homes with cops) has concrete statistics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many anomalies is too many for a copsucker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
Cops enforce laws against consensual acts such as prostitution and drug use. By definition, there are no 'good cops' - only those where their usefulness is not overshadowed by the amount of harm they do.
All cops will lock you in a cage at the whim of a politically powerful minority - and they'll kill you if you try to prevent it. Then they'll lie and cheat in order to justify their actions if necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
This is what discrimination looks like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
It's local government, local elections that places the Police Chief on the job.
The overall issue is that local governments are NOT doing their jobs on oversight.
As per most issues related to government dysfunction, this is why elections matter and why votes count.
In reality, those accountable beyond the bad apples in the police departments (especially their unions) around the country are voters who keep electing the same government officials expecting things to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SoundsLikePropaganda
The couple of incidents doesn't seriously mean cops shouldn't be allowed to eat in restaurants. This little exercise in exaggeration is meant to demonstrate that officers of the law are not inherently honest and decent people, even if there are many among them that are. There's no reason to give their word more credence than the average citizen's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not sue the police union or the cops themselves?
I know you have to go pretty far before someone can win a libel case against you but to this non-lawyer person it seems that there should be a case against the union and the cops themselves. The information was malicious and completely made up which you would think would be enough.
Businesses are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to telling cops to hit the road. The percentage of citizens in this fair country that will drop to their knees and swallow before every cop they see no matter what they do is high enough that the blow back from refusing service is going to be pretty high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two types of cops...
Bad cops...
...and those who allow them to continue being bad cops.
Ehud
P.S. The FBI interviewed me one morning because, among other things, I'd posted this comment on TechDirt previously. Yeah. That happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two types of cops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Two types of cops...
Why are you complaining? Are you a communist? Or worse, a freetard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Two types of cops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Faulty comparison
There's a pretty significant difference between 'I think this comment nailed it and want to make sure that people see it' and 'Here's some 'donation' money, if you want more in the future it would be 'nice' if you passed laws friendly to us.'
One of those draws some extra attention to a comment that would have been and is visible anyway, the other does quite a bit more than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First word
Still, it doesn't really matter, does it -- someone posts first on every comment thread, and eventually someone posts last.
> ...allows people to influence the direction of debate...
Primacy vs recency. I guess you're the "Squirrel!" type. Some people read more than just one thing before forming opinions or opining themselves.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First word
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two types of cops...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My local BBQ joint gives cops 50% off. Same with the Mexican cantina.
I've had to turn down outright free food and insist on paying at McDonalds several times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
This is not an ill-founded paranoia. An incredibly high percentage of restaurant workers have been in jail/prison. Like prison rape, spitting on customer food is not a made up thing. It happens and it's not something to joke about.
Every senior cop I did a resume for had stories. It's a reality in their world. Not maybe in smaller towns but in big cities, yes cops do inspect their food when they eat in a new place. And, as most restaurant owners would tell you, uniformed cops either eat at their place frequently or never.
Would love feedback from others who've seen otherwise because I can only speak about two metro areas and this is a big country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
In short, you're at the wrong site for reasoned discourse, least of all about police. Here it takes three examples and condemn millions of persons. -- Techdirt was never the site you believed it was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
Rules, laws, principles and such don't just apply to people you either like or dislike. They are supposed to apply to everyone. This is an idea that was once labeled "liberal".
Seems to be a bit out of fashion these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
**Rules, laws, principles and such don't just apply to people you either like or dislike. They are supposed to apply to everyone. This is an idea that was once labeled "liberal".
Seems to be a bit out of fashion these days.**
Agreed.
If you changed the names around ever so slightly and used a similar number of isolated incidents to completely vilify nearly any other group, this would look like something from the Daily Stormer.
Anything would. The point, however, is that $powerful-group-with-great-social-reach can behave with impunity to the point of wrecking someone else's business, thereby taking Other People's Money, and this is not okay. So basically "nearly every other group" = "group with power and social reach." There aren't very many of those; they're either authority figures or celebrities.
Rules, laws, and principles apply to them, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
You have no idea what I believed, what I believe now, nor anything about me or any other visitor, reader, or sponsor of TechDirt.
> In short, you're at the wrong site...
No, Sir, you're at the wrong site for making false claims. Perhaps you should go back to your podium in Helsinki.
> You may not have noticed...
We all notice lots of things but none of them are the false claims you bring up after the "You may not have noticed..." intro.
> Techdirt has turned entirely anti-police
You forgot the words "misconduct and abuse".
>... pro-drug-addict[sic]
Sorry but nothing in TD is pro-drug-addict[sic].
> anti-American
America is a set of three really big interconnected parts of a continent. Against which of this huge part of the Earth do you thinkg TD is "anti"? lol.
Seriously. Trolls are getting less intelligent by the moment.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do not dare say I speak for everyone here, but in regards to my personal positions…
If acknowledging the faults and wrongdoings of police officers make me or anyone else here “anti-police”, so be it. I would rather be “anti-police” than someone who blindly accepts the word of the cops every time.
Yes, I am in favor of measures such as clean needle exchanges and the legalization (and regulation) of all drugs. What of it?
Acknowledging the mistakes of the United States is not being “anti-American”—it is acknowledging that this country has a long history of fuck-ups leading back to the days of the original English colonies that became the first 13 states.
I am in favor of a less cruel immigration system.
People accused of a criminal act have civil rights, too. If the justice system decides to infringe upon those rights, those who did the infringing have only themselves to blame if the accused—regardless of their actual guilt—walks free.
You have confused “private” for “privately-owned” again. Just because Facebook is open to the public does not mean it has any legal, moral, or ethical obligation to let anyone use the platform to spread speech with which the Facebook owners/administrators disagree. The same goes for Twitter, Tumblr, YouTube, and any other privately-owned Internet service that is open to the general public. If you believe in the notion that the government can force the admins of Facebook, Twitter, etc. to allow certain people or certain types of speech on those platforms, you have done nothing to prove that the government has such a right.
Techdirt and numerous commenters here “condemn” the police in general because of the numerous examples of LEOs overstepping their authority or outright breaking the law while on the job. To ignore the wrongdoings of police to uphold some sort of ridiculous “Blue Lives Matter” mindset is to give the police a free pass on any kind of wrongdoing, up to and including murder. If you want to do that, go join a police union.
No, it was never the site you believed it was. You are not everyone else, and you do not speak for everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
> Amendment Right" to control the "platforms" meant to be
> The Public's outlets.
How is it when I pay huge amounts of my own money to start my own business-- an internet service-- for which I pay for the bandwidth, the hardware, developing the software, employing the people to run it, etc... that my company is "meant to be the public's outlet"?
How exactly does that work in your fevered imagination?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
Now granted, unlike in the US there's a lot less people who've had their lives destroyed for crimes like "talked back" or "skull resisted caving in and now my knuckles hurt"(that's two different crimes), and way, *way* fewer people who've had a loved one shot in the back for having a smartphone, so there's likely far less inclination here in Canada to poison everything when they walk in...
But overall, if they're that paranoid about eating, it says a lot more about the violated remains of what used to be their guilt-chips and conscience than it does about the people they're being paranoid about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
> percentage of restaurant workers have been in
> jail/prison. Like prison rape, spitting on customer food
> is not a made up thing. It happens and it's not something
> to joke about.
Yep, which is why I don't want the discounts and freebies most places will give. I work in plainclothes and I make sure I cover my badge whenever I can when going to a fast food joint. I'd rather pay full price for my Big Mac than have some extra 'sauce' added to it for free.
It happens. It happens a lot. Far more frequently than all the bad cop shit Cushing continually whines about here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
You think it only happens to cops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
In any case, malfeasance + power of life or death over the public is well worth "whining about." Perhaps if we "whine" enough, something will change.
And if you stop considering legitimate complaints to be whining, that will help the change to come sooner.
Stay safe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
I actually have done that. I even put a note in that I was submitting the story specifically to see if it would be published, given how many bad cop stories we see here.
Never saw it in the feed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Call for restaurant owners to weigh in
That means exactly nothing if you've only done it once. Hell, it may well have simply been missed, since it wouldn't surprise me if the local troll brigade are spamming that form as much as they do the articles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prison rape
Rape happens in prison because:
a. Corrections officers look the other way
b. Corrections officers don't properly discipline offenders
c. Prisons populate cells and yards to create conflicts, some of which helps a flourishing gambling industry
d. All this is done by cops
e. All of the above
If you picked "e" then you can see that cops have nothing to fear in restaurants, other than the results of their own actions (or inactions.)
"We shot up those guys last week... I don't know why the minorities hate us..." -- Said no cop ever
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...unless you're literally trying to exacerbate already tenuous relations? ...and if so, shame on you.
I'm far from an authoritarian... In my youth I was once even on the wrong side of an overzealous officer- and I have the scars to prove it...but this seaming complete lack of respect for law enforcement is long running gripe here if I'm honest. There's bad cops sure- but not all cops are bad, and even bad cops aren't bad all the time- they're human, they make mistakes that scale with their responsibility...On the whole, a vast majority of those mistakes are well intentioned.
Also- what others have said is true; huge criminal element in food service industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IMHO a few sentences to set better context and credit all the decent officers out there, and the important/challenging work they do is in order. It would help combat the impression that TD is 'anti-cop', rather then 'anti-bad-cop-behavior'....
'Person does their damn job in a competent manner' is not noteworthy or deserving of space in an article. If my job is delivering pizzas for example should I be praised for not running over a few pedestrians on the way, or should the assumption be that that is the least that can be expected of me?
If you feel the need to read about how awesome cops are just listen to the statements their unions hand out, as they seem to have nothing but praise.
but this seaming complete lack of respect for law enforcement is long running gripe here if I'm honest.
Respect is earned, not owed, and those individuals and groups mentioned in articles like this do not deserve respect, they deserve condemnation and criticism.
There's bad cops sure- but not all cops are bad, and even bad cops aren't bad all the time- they're human, they make mistakes that scale with their responsibility.
Depends on your definition of bad. 'All' isn't true, I'm sure there are some good cops, but as the saying goes 'a good cop who covers for a bad cop is not a good cop'.
As for the 'they're not bad all the time', as far as excuses go that one falls flat on it's face. Mistakes happen, but abuse of authority is not a 'mistake', and the fact that for example those mentioned in this article aren't constantly abusing their position does not make it any less of a problem when they do. The fact that they often face no repercussions for their actions doesn't exactly help either(well, help anyone but them in the short-term).
On the whole, a vast majority of those mistakes are well intentioned.
And for this, you got my funny vote.
The restaurant suffered severe reputational damage. Meanwhile, the police union refused to apologize for the lies it had posted to Facebook. The restaurant may have been cleared by the Chief of Police, but the union representing the lying cops who had fabricated a story about a cop-hating restaurant downplayed its own involvement in this debacle, stating only that not "all" of the info in its original post had been "accurate."
Tell me, what of that was 'well intentioned' or even a 'mistake'? Two cops lied in an attempt to punish a person/business that had slighted them, and even when showed to have done so their union refused to admit it.
This was not a 'mistake'. Neither was this, this, or this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I strongly disagree, especially in light of the rest of the article- the fact that most cops do their job in a competent manner, most of the time (yes, even the bad ones- and it's not excusing their behavior otherwise to say this.) is definitely deserving of space in this article. To not give it even a few passing sentences, is misleading and harmful. The world would not function if this where not the case.
I think maybe you haven't even made an attempt at compassion, let alone empathy, for what police officers have to go through. The risk is not made up. Argue all you want that it's overstated on the whole- I'd probably agree; but that doesn't change the individual experience of the officer that steps up to take on those challenges.
If you think you could be an inner-city cop without fear of being targeted for violence (no matter how decent a person you are, no matter how professional) your delusional. That fear- that reality- is not something that should be dismissed so easily, it's a fact of life for anyone that choses this occupation.
I think, if you considered that seriously, you'd find that you have some 'inherent' respect for people who would chose to take on this risk- the respect HAS been earned, to some extent, even before more concrete individual inter-actions.
Do Police Unions fight for more immunity then necessary, or healthy?...Absolutely, no argument/question- but it's important not to miss the human factor- that this position is raised from a perspective of presumed good intent with the real world experience of how the human condition intersects with the necessity for difficult and traumatic snap decisions, when lives are on the line. NO ONE PERFORMS WELL UNDER THESE CONDITIONS, EVERYONE DEFAULTS TO SOME EXTENT TO PERSONAL SAFETY= when this shit hits the fan, you cover you face- that's not a fault- it's instinct, it's humanity. It's the sort of basic thing that if you start judging people too harshly for, the world is gonna fall apart real quick.
Are there some utter shitheads that hide behind this immunity?- sure, and fuck those guys to the deepest depths of hell, nail them to the fucking wall as far as I'm concerned; there are few things more harmful to society then legitimate color of law violations as many here eloquently point out, often at the expense of contrasting nuance- none of this changes the underling logic as to the immunity's existence, we're fucking human, cops are no exception, and if you think there wouldn't be a significant (if not catastrophic) effect from lack of immunity, you simply haven't given it enough thought....put yourself in their shoes....do the work...think.
"If you feel the need to read about how awesome cops are just listen to the statements their unions hand out, as they seem to have nothing but praise."
I feel no such need- the need I have is to live in a sane world where people treat each other decently. Whether it's a cop who thinks all BLM supporters are 'cop killers' (real life example from here in the southern US I'm afraid) or a BLM supporter who thinks all cops want to kill all black people- they're both wrong. They're both missing the forest for the trees and judging groups by their outliers. If we allow our culture to be defined and steered by it's lowest common denominator bad things are going to continue to get worse.
"On the whole, a vast majority of those mistakes are well intentioned.
And for this, you got my funny vote."
Anything so sacred it can't be laughed at is cause for genuine concern. I hope you found some value as well- and apologies for taking things so far of topic that the last of your comment seams unrelated to anything I said- though admittedly much more 'on topic'. I agree with everything stated in your last couple paragraphs, and can't really think of much to comment on- clearly this sort of thing wasn't in my intended realm of 'well intentioned' or 'mistake'- rather these seam to be examples of deliberate malice. I could provide a bunch of counter examples of people being decent and getting things right, but that seams like it would miss the point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there an editor around
...and that's the reason TechDirt does have editors, and they review articles prior to publication. I'm sure they make tough decisions, unlike your publishing your manifesto above, because I've seen the articles get written and rewritten and polished prior to final release. (That's what I get for me $50 contribution!)
Still, thank you for all those sentences starting with "I". Everyone wants to know what you're all about and it's easier when you just provide an epic tome full of it.
Next time you feel like lecturing to a bunch of people you don't know about how you think an online publication should mollycoddle you, and what your opinions are, go to WashPo and check out any article with 1000-10000 posts... and read those first. Then you'll appreciate that TechDirt is NOT WashPo or NYT or CNN or FN or anything like that.
Sometimes it's best to enjoy what you have instead of trying to make it into that other thing you no longer like.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is there an editor around
Point well taken here...very poor composition on my part, and that's probably a reason it misses the mark for some.
Intent was not to lecture, it was an attempt at providing contrasting context/nuance that seamed very lacking.
Is having/showing some empathy/compassion really such a bad thing? I think the world could use allot more of that sort of thing, now more then ever.
I've no interest in mollycoddling- I'd just like to be able to recommend TD to people without the caveat: "they sometimes have articles which lack any general context on law enforcement, focusing only on bad actors- and it reads as anti-cop" -not to mention the comments...
WashPo and FN- Really? jeaze... that's a low blow man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I strongly disagree, especially in light of the rest of the article- the fact that most cops do their job in a competent manner, most of the time (yes, even the bad ones- and it's not excusing their behavior otherwise to say this.) is definitely deserving of space in this article. To not give it even a few passing sentences, is misleading and harmful. The world would not function if this where not the case.
Should article covering ISP's that are screwing their customers take time to point out that at times they also manage to deliver what they promised?
Should articles covering when a politician said/did something incredibly stupid take time out to note that they also managed to vote on a sensible bill, or say something that doesn't lead to a face-palm caused concussion?
'Person did their job in a competent fashion' is not noteworthy unless that's the exception, something out of the norm. 'Person said or did something stupid, and/or abused their position' is noteworthy as that's not supposed to be the norm.
I think maybe you haven't even made an attempt at compassion, let alone empathy, for what police officers have to go through. The risk is not made up. Argue all you want that it's overstated on the whole- I'd probably agree; but that doesn't change the individual experience of the officer that steps up to take on those challenges.
On the contrary, I'm fully aware that the job can be risky. Not nearly as risky as some would like to portray it as, but it does certainly carry some risk. However, that in no way excuses abuse of authority. It in no way excuses other cops(and certainly the unions) refusing to hold the 'few bad apples' accountable, allowing them to continue to abuse their authority, at times with lethal results.
'Empathy and compassion' does not excuse abuse of authority, and it especially doesn't excuse indifference if not active opposition to holding those engaged in it accountable.
Or put another way, I'd be a lot more willing to give police the benefit of the doubt and accept actual mistakes if they showed any interest in punishing those among themselves who's actions are anything but 'mistakes', or who have acted in a manner that would get anyone else fired if not thrown in a cell. I'd be more willing to accept honest mistakes if they were willing to own those mistakes rather than brush them aside and/or try to excuse them in a way that they hold no responsibility.
That fear- that reality- is not something that should be dismissed so easily, it's a fact of life for anyone that choses this occupation.
And that right there gets to an important part. People are not drafted into police work. You do not have government agents showing up at your house informing you that come next week your profession is going to be law enforcement, like it or not. They choose to do the job, if they can't handle what it involves or simply don't care to then they are more than welcome to quit and let someone else do it.
I think, if you considered that seriously, you'd find that you have some 'inherent' respect for people who would chose to take on this risk- the respect HAS been earned, to some extent, even before more concrete individual inter-actions.
No, not really. A person can earn respect by their actions, a profession does not grant it. Do I respect those that honestly try their best to serve the public, who refuse to provide cover for mistakes/'mistakes' by those working alongside them, and hold themselves to a higher standard because of this? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the badge or uniform and everything to do with what they do.
Any number of professions carry increased risk, simply choosing to be a member is not in and of itself worthy of respect, it's what you do after that that can earn it.
we're fucking human, cops are no exception, and if you think there wouldn't be a significant (if not catastrophic) effect from lack of immunity, you simply haven't given it enough thought....put yourself in their shoes....do the work...think.
I find it just slightly absurd to think that 'you are held to the same standards as everyone else, if not higher standards given your position and what it entails' would result in 'catastrophic' effects. Increased power and authority should have higher expectations and standards attached, not lower.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Seams like a copologist's term paper
"I strongly disagree, especially in light of the rest of the article- the fact that most cops do their job in a competent manner, most of the time (yes, even the bad ones- and it's not excusing their behavior otherwise to say this.) is definitely deserving of space in this article. "
OTOH the article made no mention of the competent fashion in which many officers use Tasers in "drive more" to torture people into compliance. Yes, "torture", despite the nice, antiseptic name they have given it with "pain compliance".
Sometimnes they just do it because they are just pissed off, as was the case with the kid in Independence, Mo., who got tasered to death. The cop wasn't even charged with the homicide (despite a return to life that was little short of miraculous, albeit without any return to normal health), only for abusing his lifeless body, or something like that.
For all I know, that cop's still working in the law enforcement field. But do you know why he wasn't charged? Because his actions fell within policy, and he had no reason to believe that pumping 50kV into someone's chest might kill them, especially if you do it circa 20 times.
Or perhaps you'll leap to the defense of the use of Tasers by police by saying that in the vast majority of cases, they don't torture people much, and anyway, it's perfectly legal for them to do it.
That last clause is absolutely correct, BTW. I'm not sure how much of that legality lies with the police lobby, but they're into it more than just a little, along with their good buddy Taser, Inc. (now Axon) to run tandem and interference for them.
so yeah, let's talk about all those good cops who use their Tasers for torture. I bet most have stories about those, including funny ones, at least in the big cities. I bet the one about handcuffed woman who an officer tased, because she was running away across the parking lot was a funny one, especially the part about how she died from hitting her head on the pavement. Hilarious.
The people who believe that the bad cops are few and far between manage to stay that way by not listening to or believing anything that might make their precious police cry.
the character Elliot Stabler was a vicious criminal who should have been convicted after the first season. Instead, he's the very model of a "good cop", someone deserving of respect.
If you think I'm ranting, you are correct, because that doesn't even begin to discuss all the other ways the police violate the law and get away with it /by category/, let alone the sub-categories of each type.
I've given up on reforming the police, because until their unions are de-fanged, nothing lasting will ever be accomplished. The reforms that can't block outright will get defunded or taken over by police sympathizers until ineffective.
But that's another of those categories I mentioned, and I've probably run too long already.
If there's a "mechanic" on a given force, all the officers who know about him, and don't turn him in are bad officers. And mechanics aren't ancient history, or mythical. Seems to me that the pro-cop side doesn't like acknowledging that sort of thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Seams like a copologist's term paper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
On the other hand, people are people and they do stupid things. I have had employees arrested for doing stupid things, but none of them had criminal backgrounds, at least until they did those stupid things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They want to get their lives back on track and they wouldn't be working any sort of proper - low-wage or not - if they were intending to do more crime; the money's way better on the other side of the legal fence.
Often the hardest workers, and you're probably more likely to find an innocent man with a criminal record pretending otherwise, than you are to find a man with no criminal record who's actually innocent. Those guys coming out of jail asking for a job, at least give them a good look; I've long learned they can be some of the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, and what DO you have on your bumper sticker?
What bumper stickers do you have on your car? Is your kid a faded honor student from a school that's no longer open but you left it on because you ran out of goo-gone? Are you a believer in Mercedes but bad kids added a vertical bar in a spat of graffiti and now it looks like you're an anarchist?
Is your license plate holder yet another mechanism for you to broadcast to the world your most dearest beliefs, because nothing says you care to communicate like littering the ass-end of your car with your political opinions, stick figures of your family, types of animals, and hobbies and sports. Perhaps you've done a half-marathon... don't leave off the 13.1 sticker!
I do appreciate knowing how you intend to file Tim Cushing stories, and TechDirt in general. Thanks for letting us know what you're going to avoid.
I always sign my name. I'd be honored if you'd add me to your "Filed Under" tag or whatever idiocy you use to not tax your brain with concepts that strain it.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem with "good cops" is that they're few, far-between, and usually end up in the crosshairs of every other cop for their efforts. Just ask Serpico, Schoolcraft and Suiter - except you can't ask Suiter because they executed him and spent a few days canvassing and harassing the whole damn neighborhood to find what evidence he may have had.
For the rest of them? The moment a good cop averts his gaze, or stands there doing nothing, or even helps a bad coworker get away with whatever bad's been done, they're not good cops anymore. When people without a badge do that they're called accomplices.
Respect is earned. Having a shiny badge and a shiny gun does not automatically mean one deserves it, and acting like it does tends to make any respect that could have happened disappear permanently. Between "testilying", excessive force, sexual assault as part of arrests under false pretenses, miraculous multi-camera "failures" when someone whom it turns out had no weapon is killed for magically "shooting", and this disgusting obsession with putting a bullet in every dog that's within range* are all things that ensure the starting level of respect or trust for police when so many of us see them is somewhere in the negatives.
We fear and avoid them because any interaction could result in extremely negative consequences for those of us without a badge... but that's not respect at all. Most of us would steer clear of any minefield if we could.
*my worst personal experience of that was a dog stuck in a hot car, who could only barely stick part of his head out of the window. Cop got close, actually said "here boy, here, come on", and executed the schnauzer then and there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serpico
Any cop that executed a dog should be rewarded. With the same fate.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serpico
His shooting started something of a cleanup in the NYPD with the Knapp commission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is 'dirt', but where is the 'Tech'?
Do you remember when MTV actually had Music, like, on TeleVision? [Hence- MTV] Or, it had news stories regarding musicians?
Sometime after the first 5-7 years, they began getting more and more into what is now called 'reality' programming.
This story reminds me of MTV in the 1990s- when it had forgotten the music part of their business, and the M became money.
We have a call-out to apply universal disrespect against a class of people due to the developments of two accounts, coupled with a general trend in social attitudes toward that group of people.
Yet, here are two other stories about cops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRWoRyZoMLk
Police buy homeless man shoes after his were stolen.
https://patch.com/washington/seattle/big-hearted-washington-cops-buy-shoes-boy-wearing-torn-s ocks
http://www.therogersvillereview.com/rogersville/article_7b2cec70-a688-5021-878d-98a7042f8565.htm l
Police buy homeless man shoes on a hot day.
My three 'good' accounts don't make all cops good any more than your two 'bad' accounts make them all bad.
And what the heck does ANY of your post have to do with tech? I can see that this is the dirt on a few people, but there is not tech- so why is it on techdirt?
Or, is this site becoming more like MTV?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is 'dirt', but where is the 'Tech'?
The magic code strikes again.
As has been explained many times at this point, just because it's primarily a tech focused site does not mean that it won't have non-tech related articles(though one could argue that this article does have a tech angle in that without the drug tests and video evidence two of those cases likely would not have ended as they did), as various writers will cover topics of their interest, some of which may be less tech-centric.
The article might have gone a bit hyperbolic in saying that cops en-mass should be turned away, but the idea behind it does seem to have weight, where a cop can do serious damage if they feel slighted and simply walk away without facing any negative repercussions themselves, making them a risky customer base at times.
(Before someone crops up to note that anyone can do that, so why not turn away everyone, yes anyone can make a claim against a business, but not everyone carries the reputation police have with many people which gives anything they say added weight, a union ready and willing to back them to the end and beyond, and very few can simply offload any financial repercussions to someone else should a claim be found to be fraudulent like the police can.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is 'dirt', but where is the 'Tech'?
> because it's primarily a tech focused site does not mean
> that it won't have non-tech related articles
It sure used to mean that. What you wrote is just an adhoc rationalization for what the previous poster aptly called the MTV-ization of this once very good tech blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is 'dirt', but where is the 'Tech'?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MTV-ization
Many of us welcome the non-tech-related articles about failures of justice.
Things change. I'm annoyed that Star Trek turned from what was a vehicle for 20th century social sci-fi into a canon-laden vehicle for space-opera. I'm sure plenty of people like it better now, but I don't. But that doesn't necessarily make Star Trek bad.
You're allowed to be sad that Techdirt has drifted away from what you wanted it to me. But that doesn't make it bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I give you money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is 'dirt', but where is the 'Tech'?
Do you also whine at the New York Times when they cover something that happens outside of New York? Did you protest at Radio Shack when they stocked things that weren't related to radio? Do you complain at Burger King when you're offered something that's not a burger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(such as links to chronologically increasingly anti-cop posts that do not have the type of argument I'm requesting here)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously cops vs public is as bad as Rep vs Dem...
IMHO, the police should go back to street beats. IE. Hire police officers from the neighborhood to patrol those streets. Hopefully, this will lead to familiarity with both police and the populace, or in the words of Terry Pratchett:
...police officers are regarded as citizens in uniform. They exercise their powers to police their fellow citizens with the implicit consent of those fellow citizens. "Policing by consent" indicates that the legitimacy of policing in the eyes of the public is based upon a general consensus of support that follows from transparency about their powers, their integrity in exercising those powers and their accountability for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously cops vs public is as bad as Rep vs Dem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously cops vs public is as bad as Rep vs Dem...
> they are often not paid enough to live in the
> neighborhoods they patrol.
You are thinking in the opposite direction. Most of the influence is probably caused from the neighborhood cops. If you live in a poor neighborhood, and the cops have no regard for your well being, well that's definitely going to influence your regard for the police in general.
Now what you are saying is not exactly inaccurate, since rich neighborhoods have the same issue. Example, The random strip searches in Manhattan because you're not Caucasian. The murder of Eric Garner, that pissed me off, since they had so much video footage...
My point is the police could hire people from poor neighborhoods, train, educate, and actually give a shit. This would help in the long run. First, it would give the police an eyeball into the problems existing. Second, it would provide a job opportunity for those people in the neighborhood, besides being some BS informant. Third after several generations of cops living there, it would be your uncle that's a police officer so that's just life.
After all that, hopefully it's a cop that getting discriminated against in Sac's 5th, and the offending cop will get hell. I know it's very long term, but I honestly don't know a better way since it's was January 1, 1863 for the Emancipation Proclamation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously cops vs public is as bad as Rep vs Dem...
> those streets.
How are you gonna do that in Beverly Hills? No cop could afford to live there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Are 100% Wrong
With that being said do you think the actions of a few people should define the treatment of an entire group? This article is simply advocating bigotry based on the actions of a few bad police officers. Are you also advocating bigotry based on the actions of a few members of any other group too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Are 100% Wrong
do you think the actions of a few people should define the treatment of an entire group
Based on the rationale on why police treat minorities and unarmed suspects the way they do... yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Good People" "Bad People"
And that's where you lose me. Who decides who is a good person or a bad person?
The police decided Tamir Rice was a bad person before they stopped and talked to him. Philando Castile had proven to law enforcement he was not a bad person fifty-two times before they shot him on the fifty-third.
How many good deeds does it take to make up for dead kids and dead teachers.
And this is before we get to our ambitious district attorneys, whose determination of good person and bad person is based largely on their own political ambitions. Our criminal system has a nearly 100% indictment rate and a 90% conviction rate, not because our DAs are that good, but because our public defenders are grossly underpaid and overworked, and because it's easy to convince a jury of twelve that some shlub is a menace.
And DAs have prosecutorial discretion which means they get to choose what cases to pursue. Incidentally, 90% of them are white and male, which probably is only coincidental to our disproportionate non-white prison populations.
Of course, if we admitted that people break laws typically out of ignorance (three felonies a day, worth) or because laws prohibit common behavior (speeding, sharing), or out of desperation, because we make it easy for folks in the ghetto to become felons, and then hard for felons to earn a living.
So to Hell with your good people / bad people bullshit. When police stop indiscriminately murdering people, when they stop using false drug tests and false detection dogs to attain arrests, when they stop SWAT-raiding houses indiscriminately, then they can enjoy spit-free coffee in public then.
Until then, our law enforcement agent-of-state are nothing short of the enforcers of a provisionary occupational government who has extensive privileges over the rest of us, and abuse them daily with impunity. They are like Nazis in Paris and deserve the same spite and malice as they do.
Especially now that they have work camps and are detaining people without due process. Anyone with integrity or dignity remaining should resign today, because it's really gotten that bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always preview when ranting.
Of course, if we admitted that people break laws typically out of ignorance (three felonies a day, worth) or because laws prohibit common behavior (speeding, sharing), or out of desperation, because we make it easy for folks in the ghettos to become felons, and then hard for felons to earn a living...
...then we'd have to admit that the whole justice system is based on the false pretense that crime is a choice.
Crime is a failure of state more often than it is a failure of the citizen. But we'd rather just lock warm bodies in a massive-yet-impacted prison system and pretend that's helping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Always preview when ranting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"lack of an erection"
That's your argument? To imply that I'm impotent?
Oh wait, you're the Democrats are deranged virtue-signaler.
Consider lurking more, until you have something actually relevant to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
No, it's called a setup. Comedians do it all the time, but they're funny.
> Do you imagine...
Do you?
> Am I correct in thinking...
Let us know when you start thinking and we'll let you know when you start to be correct.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LOL Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crime as a failure of state
Crime as a failure of state is a huge topic, on which volumes have been written. As Madison observed, human society is not governed by angels. We don't make good laws. We don't enforce them well. We judge a lot of people who were innocent or justified and throw them into prison. The specific item list regarding these failures is extensive, many of which have made for running topics on TechDirt
And yes, if personal responsibility was regarded equally, then large-scale fraud and embezzlement be prosecuted and judged proportionally to theft by common burglars. Police killings would be prosecuted and sentenced consistently with gangster slayings. People in power would not be able to coerce their victims into silence or stop judicial investigations. Law would apply evenly, and would apply always, and we'd quickly discard laws that incriminate too many people. Speed limits (for example) would be abolished, or at least would be elevated above the speeds that drivers ordinarily go.
But in the United States, large-scale white collar crime often goes unpunished. Bribery of our elected representatives and officials is legal and normal. Black drivers get pulled over for no cause. Public defenders are hobbled in contrast to prosecutors, and police are notorious for lying in court to back the false testimonies of their brethren.
But yeah, a lot of crime is reduced when a state does bolster its social welfare to assure fewer are starving, fewer go without a home, when fewer are unable to find employment and when fewer are sick without medical care
A lot of crime is reduced when laws are vetted to actually serve the public and not the aristocratic elite, and when they are reviewed to show they are actually serving their intent.
A lot of crime is reduced when laws are enforced evenly and consistently, regardless of sex, race, religion or social stratum, and unpopular laws are stricken down.
Of course we've never seen a society that is perfect in these regards, but if we did, at that point yes, I'd expect crime to all but disappear. I'd expect to see the remaining crime to occur only due to rare individuals with mental disorder that cause antisocial behavior. And even they shouldn't be sent into a prison system like the current one in the states, but rather should be contained without mistreatment, and then they might even be treatable for their illness.
Many societies are far closer to it than the US is. Some societies have implemented policy that has very clearly shown reduction in crime: Portugal's rate of drug addiction has plummeted since they decriminalized possession and now regard addiction as sickness (and have established clinics to support them toward recovery). Germany's abortion rate is the lowest in the world, and they have full access to abortion. They also have massive social welfare programs to support women with kids and full (free) access to contraceptives.
Why don't we do what they're doing? That we don't (largely due to mass corruption) is a failure of government, id est, a failure of state.
I've found the writings of Rick Falkvinge (Wiki) to be helpful. A simple web search should be sufficient to find some of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crime as a failure of state
Wow. You really said it so very very well.
Amen, brother!
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crime as a failure of state
Why don't we do what they're doing?
See, your problem is that you mentioned Rick Falkvinge as a point of reference. As in, the guy who invented the Pirate Party. That immediately makes the trolls foam at the mouth.
Not saying you're wrong, but any mention of Falkvinge makes trolls get a twist in their panties, develop a crippling urge to eat a baby, then blame their hunger on pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crime as a failure of state
While I've had the occasional beef with Rick (he's gone all anarcho-capitalist) I do respect his views on tech and on IPR in particular.
Those people who foam at the mouth will foam anyway, whatever we do. There's no pleasing them unless we completely surrender ourselves to their tender mercies.*
*WARNING: their mercies might not be particularly tender.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crime as a failure of state
Thank you for your response. It really helps me to understand the liberal world view. IMHO, I think this might be the fundamental disagreement between liberals and conservatives. If you view the world as being populated with good people in a difficult situation created by the State, then what you say absolutely makes sense. I don’t view people that way, I see people with more human flaws, like greed and laziness and aggression with an inherent impatience and tendency towards violence to resolve disputes. I would expect that even with a perfect State, crime would only decrease slightly, the bulk would remain.
I can respect your opinion, however, and you do seem quite well read. I just see the world, and the people in it, differently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crime as a failure of state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberalism as "People are fundamentally good"
I wouldn't take my perspective as indicative of the liberal world view. Yes, it's tempting to categorize large groups of people according to a common set of traits, but I'm far from a typical liberal (and stereotypical liberals in recent eras have become a fictional caricature). And when it comes to large enough identity groups (liberal, conservative, Christian, Muslim, feminist, gun enthusiast, whatever) it is impossible to find a notion that is consistent among the entire set. This included those notions that one might think are axiomatic to their ideology.
(I'd argue that my most consistent disagreement with folks on the right is this: I think we need a large, pluralistic society in order to attain and maintain all the large-population infrastructure services we enjoy, such as running water, power, internet, big science programs and so on, and many have argued either they'd rather reduce the size of their society, or that they could build that big infrastructure without a big society, or that our society should be non-pluralistic.)
Moreover, as someone in the psychiatric sector, it is not enough for me to look at human characteristics (flaws, as you put it) and judge people when their behaviors become dysfunctional. I need to know why, sometimes in the hopes of facilitating treatment. When it comes to normal people (or, for the psychiatric model, mentally healthy) people, they behave in consistent ways. Acquisitiveness, avolition and aggression (outside of moderation) are outside the realm of healthy behavior. I assume you don't believe we should purge or otherwise hinder those who are disabled or downtrodden, at least until they are a danger to themselves or others. Yes?
And also, my indictments of the US civic system (which, granted, I did not lay out in length) are ones that should be addressed regardless of whether or not they would reduce crime, yes? Our legislators often have vested interests contrary to those of the pubic. Our legislators do not comb their laws sufficiently for perverse incentives or for means to circumvent regulation. Our police are not expected to know the laws they enforce (yet citizens are expected to know when they're violating law), and they do a poor job of enforcing what they believe is law. And our court system is assessed not on the number of cases successfully adjudicated but on the number of convictions, leading it to favor convictions outside of reasonable proof, or by using false evidence, or by violating established rights of the individual. And we have no other means to confirm the veracity of court rulings.
Even if you think crime would not be reduced, I assume you still would rather crimes be limited to real threats to society. I assume you would rather criminals were fairly convicted, and innocents fairly exonerated. I assume you want sentences proportionate to the crime committed. Yes? I assume you would want law enforcement officers to follow proper protocol and not resort to violence unnecessarily, only as a last resort. Right? I assume you would want our laws to be few and reasonable and serve the good of the public and for their function to match their intent. Does all this make sense?
To me, these are no-brainer goals toward a more perfect union. Even if we can't achieve perfection, we can certainly get closer by orders of magnitude. And right now our officials and agents of the state are not even trying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberalism as "People are fundamentally good"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
That is the symptom.
That is the disease.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
The state, in political parlance, is the government. This can refer to any specific level—local, county, state, or federal—or to all levels of government at once. People have used it to refer to the justice system, the cops, and other agents and agencies of the government.
As for what it could be? Well, “better” would be a good start.
Yeah, and that is the point: In a perfect world, there would be no crime because there would be no reason for it. Our world, however, is not a perfect one.
Oh, and one last thing:
I wish I was Neo. Dude was bad-fuckin’-ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
1) The state is corrupted by the wealthy
2) The wealthy own private prisons
3) Crime rates go down
4) Law 'n Order becomes a political slogan
5) Incarceration rates skyrocket
6) Profit!!!
Crime is instigated by the wealthy in order to maintain their mechanism of control, "justice" is just one of those mechanisms. Clearly, it is not a cut and dried topic as you claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
It's far easier than actually addressing the person you're talking to and finding out their real opinions, I know. But, wouldn't you rather not be wasting your time typing up a response to a figment of your imagination, and find out what other people really think about subjects that are important enough to you to type reams of text about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you have is dumbassery you want to paint as a “liberal idea” so you can both smear liberals and deflect from the discussion at hand, which has fuck-all to do with the healthcare system. If you are going to be an asshole, at least be an honest one, you brat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In soviet russia the system tells you who you work for
It's not "volunteerism" because they didn't volunteer, it's "conscription."
I do appreciate the appeal of your socialist ideas. They aren't part of our Constitutional democracy.
E
P.S. "Let them make as much as they want the other 50% of the time" -- absurd. People want to "make as much as they can" 100% of the time. Except when THEY volunteer. Note the use of the words "they" and "volunteer" meaning it's by choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In soviet russia the system tells you who you work for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: In soviet russia the system tells you who you work for
"I think a lot of law firms require that their attorneys do “pro bono”"
There's plenty of jobs where overtime is more of an unspoken requirement than a benefit. But a guy like this will probably happily do 60 hours on a 40 hour contract for no extra pay, while mocking the idea of forced labour as communist, without a glint of irony coming into his view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: In soviet russia the system tells you who you work for
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We socialize healthcare, duh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "lack of an erection"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The criminal is a symptom. The state is the disease.
The state does not actively converts people into criminals, but it can and often does create the conditions under which people become criminals. When the state refuses to do anything about the root causes of crime—e.g., poverty, lack of opportunity, high costs of living—people become desperate; in their desperation, they turn to committing crimes because they see no other options. The state puts them through the criminal justice system, and because the United States focuses more on punishment than rehabilitation and reintegration with society, the whole cycle can start all over because people with criminal records tend to have harder lives than everyone else, which leads to desperation, which…well, you get the point.
This is not a partisan issue. The state has a responsibility toward the people it governs; that responsibility does not fall on only one party or one type of ideology. Incidentally, your remark about the difference between liberals and conservatives is telling—because it makes liberals sound as if they are trying to make things better, and conservatives sound as if they are trying to keep the status quo where it is for as long as they can. Maybe you did not intend for that interpretation, but I can only go with the execution that is given to me, and execution always overrides intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The majority of the Founding Fathers owned slaves and wrote a Constitution that screwed over women and people of color (both freed and enslaved). Get yourself some better heroes and stop letting governing philosophies that were en vogue more than two centuries ago influence your opinions. The Founding Fathers are long dead; while we should at least respect their intent in re: the Constitution, they should no longer have a say—or the final say—in how this country is run in the here and now.
Conservatives destroy the system by envisioning a past that they thought was better—at least for them—and trying to reform government and society into the non-existent “good ol’ days”. They’re not so brazen as to call for the return of slavery, but I have seen conservatives support the re-criminalization of abortion, the resegregation of public schools, the denial of (and thus inaction toward) global climate change, the repeal of environmental protections, the sale of public lands to fossil fuel companies, the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges (which would wreak havoc on same-sex marriages nationwide), the repeal of the Johnson Amendment (which would confer a special privilege unto religious groups that non-religious non-profit groups could not make use of), the legalization of religious-based anti-LGBT discrimination, the weakening of unions, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act without a plan in place to replace Obamacare, the separation of migrant families and their children, the blockage of and opposition to any new gun control laws (and any public health studies on gun violence), the elimination of what we generously call “welfare” (e.g., food stamps), partisan gerrymandering designed to give Republicans an advantage, making voting harder for all but the most privileged of people, repealing consumer financial protection laws and regulations, opposing comprehensive sex education (which is far more effective than “abstinence only” sex ed), reforming the criminal justice system to help reduce the mass incarceration problem (for starters), continuing the “war on terror” and all other various military excursions being fought by soldiers at this moment, opposing any raise to the minimum wage (if not opposing a minimum wage altogether), and giving tax breaks to the wealthy under the long-since-proven-to-be-bullshit idea of “trickle-down economics”.
You want to talk about liberals “destroying the country” because they’re too idealistic about the future? Conservatives are currently destroying this country because they’re too idealistic about a past that existed only in their own minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I went over that whole thing twice and missed that one mistake. I blame the weather.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
However, they weren't unusual in those regards according to the standards of the time. In fact, I don't think they'd have got as far as they could if they included equal rights for both groups right off the bat, even if they personally believed they should be granted.
But - this is the important part - they understood that values change over time, and thus built into the constitution a means by which to amend it according to changing standards. They knew that it could not last if a majority of people no longer agreed with it, in ways they could not predict from their moment in time.
As an outsider looking in, that's always been the great part about it. A shame that so many apparently don't understand this and seem to believe that only the original parchment is worth protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Constitutional “originalists” believe that only the original text of a law or set of laws (e.g., the Constitution) and the intent of those who wrote the law (e.g., the Founding Fathers) should be considered by judges when interpreting the law. A strict interpretation based on such limits, however, makes a strict adherence to the original words of the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers incompatible with the need to interpret the laws they wrote for the present day.
If we adhered to the First Amendment by the text and the intent behind it alone, for example, no speech at all could be punished by the government (“Congress shall make no law […] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”). We have defamation laws and laws against inciting violence—not to mention that whole copyright thing that so many people are fond of using as a censorship cudgel—so we obviously did not stick to the intent and text of the First Amendment.
We cannot and should not allow the intent of men who died hundreds of years ago to rule over us in the here and now. We can respect their intent while allowing for interpretations of our laws that better suit the realities of the 21st century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If we adhered to the First Amendment by the text and the intent behind it alone"
Which is itself, utterly ridiculous on its face. If you will only consider the original text, why would you even consider an amendment to that text? If the response is because it was also written by the founders, then the logical rebuttal is that the fact those original amendments exist mean that even they recognised that they had made mistakes or omissions in the original documents. Therefore, why should other corrections, insertions or clarifications not be considered?
I mean, I know the real answer is essentially "because that means that people I don't like get to do things I don't like" or "I can't be freely racist/sexist/impose my religion on others/etc."), but I think that when those people try pretending it's some logical position, they always stop making sense when you examine the argument on its own merits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's why you're the attorney general.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Always preview when ranting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Good People" "Bad People"
> Who decides who is a good person or a bad person?
Apparently Tim Cushing does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Are 100% Wrong
If the other members are known to collude to protect those who are committing those actions, rather than hold them to the standards expected of the rest of society? Yes.
"Are you also advocating bigotry based on the actions of a few members of any other group too?"
Are they people who are grouped together purely by their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., or because they deliberately chose a specific profession and deliberately choose continue to remain employed as such despite the actions of that group, with no attempt to hold those guilty of negative actins responsible?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This better be a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix the problem
Recommending any business to ban law enforcement - that is simply bad business all the way around. I welcome any law enforcement officer (in uniform or undercover/plain clothes, weapon or no weapon) end of story. If someone else feels uncomfortable.. maybe THEY should leave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone else feels uncomfortable...
Eventually n0tbyingit either you or friend of yours will have a run in with the law and find themselves on the receiving end of a blue beatdown, or just doing time for what should have been a minor incident. And then you'll get it.
More and more people fall into that category every day. The police are operating outside law or even protocol, and decades of administrations have been accepting it. This one wants the brutality ratcheted up to eleven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If someone else feels uncomfortable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But we take their word for it when they (and their laughably mistaken testing kits) mistake tea leaves for weed, and icing sugar for cocaine.
The fuck?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This raises an obvious concern...
Which is reprisal from the police when a restaurant uninvites officers.
Maybe there's a way to express to law enforcement officers their unwelcome without offending them.
Or the kitchen can just pool spit in their food.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
+1
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daddy in the Diner
You and your "daddy" are kindly asked to leave... and he can take his "wisdom" with him.
So much for your hatred of Democrats. The only mental deformity is the one inside your head.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
Father: I don't know, we're republicans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
> Father: I don't know, we're republicans.
And yet it's the Dems/Left who keep telling us that there are 87 genders. 'Cause that's science!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
Many scientists state they do not consider physiology to be a science.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
damn spell checker
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
psychonomy
A word ending in "ology" is the "study of".
A word ending in "onomy" is the "science of."
Astrology is not a science. It's a study of the stars.
Astronomy is a science.
Psychology is not a science. It's a study of the psyche.
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Cops are welcome in my restaurant NationWide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the point ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One bad, all bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhataboutObama
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One bad, all bad
You say this as if police aren’t actually trained to think this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One bad, all bad
Techdirt, the new platform for anti American bashing
If it's anti-American to bash police, what does it say when the leader of America bashes his law enforcement agents on a daily basis?
Or is "self-awareness" not part of your DNA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One bad, all bad
Of course Techdirt bashes anti-Americans, why wouldn't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Just Restaurants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well...
Truth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, wait, wait, there's Subways that have a drive-thru?
That right there tells me it's a fake accusation. I've never seen a single subway with a drive-thru.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> That right there tells me it's a fake accusation. I've
> never seen a single subway with a drive-thru.
There's a drive-thru Subway in my town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You've lost it
Tim, you've lost it here.
Sure, cops lie. Teachers lie, too. And engineers, artists, pilots, nurses, and auto mechanics.
People lie, and cops are people.
But not all people. Just a minority.
It's just as unfair, and unreasonable, to paint all cops with a broad brush as it is to paint any other group.
We need cops. There are genuinely bad people in the world who commit real (not victimless) crimes. Somebody has to discourage that, and stop them forcefully when necessary and possible.
That's the cops job. It's a real and necessary job. And it's a tough one - they deal with hard cases and bad people all day, instead of once in a great while like the rest of us.
Cops are supposed to enforce the laws passed by the legislature. Some of those laws are stupid, unfair, or target innocent and harmless behavior (the drug war, for example). But it's not a cop's job to second-guess the legislature. We have elections and courts for that.
None of this works perfectly, or even close. But it's the best we know how to do so far.
Do I feel comfortable when cops enter a restaurant where I'm eating? No. Because there are too many laws, too vaguely defined and enforced, and that gives the cops too much power to hassle (or destroy the lives of) innocent people.
I feel far more comfortable (contra ShadowNinja) when I see a civilian enter with a gun on a belt - that guy can't arrest me, yet can shoot a killer in an emergency.
But we need cops all the same. They fill a critical role in society, and it's wrong to attack them as a group.
By all means, attack bad cops when they misbehave. Attack bad laws, and demand they be changed. Attack broken and corrupt systems that support bad cops.
But praise good cops when they keep their head, keep the peace, and respect peaceful citizens.
And give cops they respect they're due - just like plumbers and bus drivers and doctors - for filling a necessary role in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've lost it
It's more sad than upsetting to see stories like this in TechDirt. It kind of reflects the overall decrease in journalistic quality we're seeing everywhere... this apparent belief that if the writer/editor FEELS strong enough about something, that excuses biased writing, errors of omission, and and so on. It's less insightful, more juvenile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You've lost it
"if the writer/editor FEELS strong enough about something, that excuses biased writing, errors of omission, and and so on"
You've been reading here for a long time, and you haven't worked out yet that it's an opinion blog, not a primary journalism source? Or, are you saying the people on an opinions blogs shouldn't be stating their... opinions for some reason?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've lost it
1) You claim not all people lie? I find this rather amusing as certainly they have lied at least once in their life time. Perhaps that is not what you meant.
2) Cops are not "Due" respect simply because of their chosen profession. Respect is earned, not demanded. Maybe what you mean is that cops should be shown courtesy and civility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You've lost it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
miscontruals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't quite see the "cop" angle here
But this opinion piece does not appear to bother figuring out whether we are talking about something of statistical significance here, or even something done in a systemic manner. It goes wild on single incidents, not bothering to check for an actual pattern.
That's underwhelming. There may or may not be a worthwhile point to address, but little to no effort for determining whether this is the case has been extended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We only know about those incidents because they made it to the news. How many other such incidents might have happened in the past that were not reported by either the press or the general public because, y’know, cops?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dial it down a notch...
In my naivety I would like to think that the creators and contributors to this site genuinely want to improve society by highlighting abuses by the wealthy and powerful. Sometime the articles posted here are entirely unhelpful in this vein.
There's something deeply hypocritical about taking a stand against a group that you fault for (at times)rushing to elevate a situation to hostility without cause by encouraging people to act in a hostile manner without cause to demonstrate their frustrations about it. Where does this process end? Do you expect the police to back down from hostile citizens because they understand their sins? Would you? Ratcheting up the hostility is not going to lead to fewer bad cops. If anything it's going to push good-intentioned cops into situations that they will feel threatened. If you have a weapon and you feel threatened, guess what goes through your mind.
The best medicine at the end of the day for both sides here is to walk a mile in the others' shoes. We can't have a society with **no** police, we have to figure out a way to get good ones and weed out the bad ones. Scorning them all in public isn't the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dial it down a notch...
As new information,
"Cop makes mistake about what he thought was dirt in his burger" hardly seems worthy of mention.
I hereby stamp this article with my trusty "unproductive and thus not worthy of techdirt" stamp!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dial it down a notch...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free meals
Years ago a friend & I were picking up coffee & a donuts from a immigrant owned shop. When he went to pay his badge (EMS guy) flashed in his wallet & the proprietor refused the money. It wasn't until a bit later he realized why.
This was long before social media. I believe there were other reasons why we were not charged. Fear maybe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait... but
I know slander and libel can be hard to prove, but this one seems like it'd be pretty easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait... but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The gang bangers that kill each other and innocent people and those that allow other black people to be gang bangers.
How does that one work for you Tim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
False analogy
In this particular case, the analogy is entirely false.
1. "Black people" is not a profession, has no sworn oath to e.g. uphold the law, and is not accountable as a protectorate of society.
2. There are in fact gang-bangers, and a subset of those are some of "Black people" but by only discussing that subset you ignore the non-"Black people" gangbangers and the lack of supposed duty to stop those people from gangbanging.
3. Innocent people (that would be everyone who has not been convicted by a court of committing a criminal offense) have societal duties, but are not REQUIRED nor are UNDER OATH nor are OBLIGATED to interfere in a criminal event, stop a criminal event, risk their lives to do either, or even report on said event.
So, thanks for the racist bullpuckey, but your analogy is false, non-analogous, ignores duties that law enforcement have voluntarily taken on themselves, and is spiteful to a particular minority.
Ehud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The analogy that is not an analogy and the ones that omit a vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sentence fragments do not a conclusion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c
E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're playing rugby now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
After all, the cops are the ones that interact with most 'criminals' to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]