As another white-guy-from-a-fairly-mixed-environment, trust me—color was always a “thing.” It’s just that some of us had the luxury of being oblivious to the ongoing racism around us.
15 Likes
Environmental lead seems to be a better explanation:
2 Likes
I just read a statistic which showed the number of police who die on the job each year is equivalent to the number of children killed by guns in the same year. I think the stats came from 2011. When you add up the staggering amount of injuries due to domestic abuse as well, I’d say it’s safer to be a police officer than a kid in the U.S. And they aren’t even issued military-grade equipment to protect themselves.
3 Likes
I think wearable cameras for the cops is a good idea but with the resistance to it, perhaps the other way around. We should all wear cameras (uploaded to the cloud for when the cop “accidentally” destroys it).
4 Likes
Well, as I read it, if you’re alone and not obstructing pedestrians, you should be just fine.
Perhaps Ruby Tuesday could come out and complain that their customers are being harassed for simply waiting outside the restaurant.
1 Like
Indeed.
Actually, yes, I can, because the number of life-threatening situations are few and far between, and most cops elsewhere in the First World don’t act that way. That’s an excuse for being in that “mode”, and not a particularly honest one.
NYC is thus, I guess, essentially inimical to Francophone couples. In most countries that follow the Code civil, a woman’s legal name after marriage is her maiden name. That certainly doesn’t stop a woman from using “Mme So-and-so” in daily usage, but using the maiden name exclusively isn’t uncommon either.
2 Likes
If you have a suspicion index that correlates strongly with melanin --you’re going to “read it” rather differently.
Not all work related deaths are violent in the “someone attacking someone else” sense. Most work related injuries and deaths are accidental, which is why cops are more likely to die in car accidents while patrolling than to be killed intentionally.
Our brains tend to automatically regard intentional killing as more salient for dangerousness, but frankly: screw that. Cops need to admit they are not in as much danger as taxi drivers (but get paid substantially better), and calibrate their behavior appropriately.
5 Likes
Perhaps my comment seems like low hanging fruit or something but really, the comparison of the job the Police do, when they have to be aware of other people using lethal force against them is not fucking comparable to some lumberjacks contending with falling trees. Lumberjacks, by the way, who implement many safety procedures and processes in order to not get crushed or maimed. Heaven forbid they should hurt the feelings of the falling trees. Trees who do not have the opportunity to sue them for malpractice after the fact.
The only slightly similar dangerous job on the list (which has, by the way already been introduced into the conversation and to which I have already responded) is the job of Taxi driver. They interact with the public too, and are not in any important way, perceivable as agents of the state or fascist pricks that contributed to the public’s mistreatment by discriminatory government backed practices and they still get attacked and murdered by the public. (Perhaps those taxi drivers in your town are racist fucks who never stop for anyone who isn’t white but I seriously doubt that is a major contributing factor. I think they are probably just seen as mobile banks that turn up when you call.)
The central component of my argument, and that which you seem happily oblivious to for the purpose of whatever kind of point it is you think you are making, is that cops do get murdered for being cops and any cop that doesn’t treat each and every single interaction with an unknown person as potentially life threatening is sure gonna feel real bad in their last few seconds for not taking precautions on the unusual but still potentially dangerous situation. As do their still living buddies who, I imagine, take those lessons very hard.
Given this state of affairs, is it still unreasonable for cops to treat every interaction with an unknown human as potentially life threatening?
I am not making an unreasonable point. That is why they behave they way they do in common interactions and it is probably always a good idea to bite your tongue when dealing with them, do as they say and sue the fuck out of them later. For your own safety.
This understanding of their motivations does not have any bearing on any criminal practices employed by the police or encouraged by the courts or made profit on by the prison industrial complex.
It is just an observable fact about a contributing factor to the totally shite attitude of almost every cop.
And you don’t see them getting all fascist with the roofs do you?
Pfffff
@PatRx2
I am absolutely not appealing to the amount or number of fatal incidents, that the end result is even a possibility at all means that they should be taking precautions.
I am not attempting to make this observation in any way an excuse for any criminal practices by lazy cops or corrupt cops or murderous cops blah blah blah etc etc
I understand the hatred most people feel towards the Police, who are supposed to be there to protect us and who couldn’t give a shit about us. I feel that too. It doesn’t mean I can’t be cognisant of their motivations.
Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ I’ve stepped onto a thought terminating land mine here.
The problem is well known to dog trainers: fear and aggression send off the same signals and thus are read the same way by dogs. They’re much jumpier and more likely to attack, which of course sends off those same signals, and pretty soon it’s a full circle of fear/aggression.
The police would get a better response from a calmer public if they weren’t on high-alert all the time.
To use a simple but obvious example: who had better control in every situation, Sheriff Andy Taylor or Deputy Barney Fife?
9 Likes
I don’t disagree.
Would you be the first to take the chance that your change in behaviour will start a revolution of change that blossoms around the world and ushers in a new era of peace between the police and the public?
The really unbelievable thing is that there are actually a tiny set of good cops out there that do take that chance.
I think the bar to entry should be higher. Like, much, much fucking higher and I believe that if that condition was enacted the cops should get paid way, way fucking more.
As the state of affairs currently stands, I am reminded of an old Billy Connolly joke
The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever being one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58OBTi18bsY
Same goes for the fascists who see a fantastic opportunity to crush everyone under their heels as police officers in the current climate.
2 Likes
Ex-fucking-zactly. Giving up your rights works, of course, and is exactly what the cops wanted, but is not, in fact, required of you by law, nor should it ever be.
2 Likes
Congratulations, You’re part of the problem. Just in case you were wondering.
7 Likes
An area of your proven expertise, to be sure.
1 Like
Customers purchase things.
Not saying she should be noticed by the NYPD at all, just saying that it doesn’t sound like they are ‘customers’ so much as ‘people using the restroom of a NYC restaurant without buying a meal’. Hardly an arrestable offense.
The vast majority of criminologists disagree with you. There are lots of theories, possibilities, but anyone who says they know what’s caused the nationwide decrease in violent crime is selling something.
Why is a person who simply refuses to reflexively supplicate to authority necessarily “making a point?” Maybe they’re just trying to live their lives without disrupting anyone else’s and they don’t see why they should have obey all orders by armed state representatives, whether or not those orders are lawful or sensible.
It seems that, for you, this issue is about how to avoid getting arrested. But that’s easy and boring. You avoid getting arrested by obeying, no matter what.
But for most here, this issue is about the appropriate use of power by the state to control the citizenry, which is neither easy nor boring. And so I’ll repeat my question from above:
Why should a person who’s not blocking traffic or doing anything to interfere with anybody or anything have to explain themselves to a police officer?
3 Likes
And yet they did exactly that. They did undeniably did arrest her for a clearly non-arrestable “offense,” so that’s not really an argument…
5 Likes
What they do isn’t taking precautions. I reiterate, most cops in Western countries normally don’t act that way. There are always some, to be sure, but the individuals develop a reputation as bad cops. What you’re really telling me is that bad cops are normal in your country.
For example, since when does a simple city ordinance require an arrest, especially when the person supposedly in violation of the ordinance is distinctly non-threatening? (I use the word “supposedly” advisedly - in any large city, people waiting for someone on the sidewalk are a part of the landscape, and not particularly an obstruction to foot traffic. It takes work, and usually two or more people, to obstruct traffic on the typical city sidewalk.) In my country, they issue tickets for that (and they’re only likely to do so when the person really is lippy).
That’s why I say that the supposed danger is an excuse, and not a particularly honest one. They don’t act that way because they’re on edge; it’s looking more and more likely that they act that way because they’re doing their jobs, and their job isn’t to serve the public, it’s to serve the State, and thus their main function is intimidation. The divide between the nation (the public) and the State has grown particularly pronounced in the last three or so decades.
Well, if you hadn’t stopped thinking, you wouldn’t have stepped on one. You’ve taken the usual excuse at face value, and there really isn’t much reason in this case (in most cases, really) to do so.
5 Likes
