The thing is, you keep acting as if being on high alert is what saves these officers’ lives - despite the fact that you agree that aggression encourages aggression in the people they encounter. You don’t have to be unprepared for danger in order to act in a way that de-escalates the situation rather than doing the reverse. I do understand that police officers need to be aware of risks, but this attitude both exaggerates those risks and ignores the fact that the police claim to keep to a higher standard than other citizens and should not allow the risks to change their behaviour to the point of showing aggression to people who are acting calmly and respectfully - in fact, the opposite should take place:
MISSION
The MISSION of the New York City Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment.
VALUES
IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY, WE PLEDGE TO:
Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and impartially enforce the law.
Fight crime both by preventing it and by aggressively pursuing violators of the law.
Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally expected of others because so much is expected of us.
Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual and render our services with courtesy and civility.
The rest of your post seems to support this, but it also seems to be in conflict with some of your other comments. I think where the police keep to this mission statement, they deserve a lot of respect. It may involve police officers putting themselves in harm’s way at times in order to preserve the peace for everyone, because treating the 999 safe police stops like the 1 dangerous one is unacceptable (although I’m fine with being prepared without being aggressive). The fact is, it is their job to bring peace between the police and the public. We are not on opposite sides, or at least we shouldn’t be. Where people are acting lawfully, they deserve to be treated with respect, dignity, courtesy and civility. We have a right to expect them to act with integrity. We have a right to have our lives and property valued. This is not it:
Like you, I can understand how the police get this idea that they are under constant threat. The fact is though, the statistics don’t support the idea that the threat is that great and their aggressive response is just making things worse and undermining their basic mission.
The police are given training, equipment and backup for this eventuality, so we should expect them only to use force and aggression as a last resort. It is completely unreasonable for cops to be on edge when they approach someone who is not aggressive. People who are on edge are out of control, and we need people who are fully in control of themselves in order to do this job.
Yawn this is boring now, I’ve already replied to this point by quoting something I had previously posted. And shall again:
That is because I am not looking to excuse their behaviour but rather to understand their motivations. If you assume that I am attempting to excuse their behaviour then I can see why you would think my observations and feelings on the topic might be at odds. They are.
Misrepresentation. Any chance whatsoever does not equal constant. No matter how much you misunderstand or twist my comments.
Again, I never conteded that the police are under constant threat, or that they think that they are, merely that there is a chance they may be entering a dangerous situation in any interaction with the public and so take an aggressive, defensive posture.
Why is it, in your opinion. unreasonable?
Another quote from a previous reply I made:
I dearly hope it is as frustrating for you as it is for me to explore this topic. Misery loves company.
That would be a consequence of their behaviour rather than their motivations going into an encounter, which is what I have proposed/observed/relayed.
However, to address your point; I would assume that Police value their lives over their ability to politely and correctly interact with the public.
Again… again… again, my point is that they are motivated to use excessive caution which, consequentially, creates negative interactions with the public from the get go.
I’m going to get one of those ‘cool off’ warnings from Discourse soon, I think. LOL
You quoted the same sentence twice, but I accept that my summary was more extreme than your original statement.
I think the main issue is the definition of understandable. I can understand why they would adopt this posture from a psychological perspective, as there are people out there who would try to do harm to them. However, I expect their training to equip them to deal with this rational fear so that it doesn’t get in the way of their job.
Because when a cop comes up to you, you should expect to be dealt with with courtesy and to have your legal rights respected. There will never be a time when there is no risk at all in this situation, so the fact that the risk exists is not a reasonable excuse for ignoring large parts of a very short mission statement. If you have the 1/1000 chance of an aggressive encounter in the back of your mind and therefore confront an unarmed and non-confrontational person (such as Chaumtoli Huq) with an aggressive or defensive posture, you’re going to miss opportunities to resolve the situation calmly or see the times when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation (not obstructing, just waiting for family. Not resisting arrest, just concerned about losing contact with young children in a big city. Not unrelated to her family, just from a different culture).
It looks like we may agree on quite a bit, despite using different language. Would it be fair to say that it is understandable and reasonable for police officers to feel this way, but completely unreasonable for them to act on it in a way that compromises their own principles of courtesy, dignity and respect for life? Excessive caution is going to have serious consequences that are especially harsh for people of colour like Mrs. Huq, so there’s no excuse for showing it if it isn’t warranted by the situation. I can understand that a police officer approaching me might have a slight fear for their life, but this should never be reflected on me if I am acting in a lawful way. If I make the choice to just comply with the on-edge cop and trust my chances to the courts later because I fear for my life without having shown any aggression, this is an unreasonable overreach of powers and an attack on the rule of law (not to mention that the courts are not likely to rule in my favour anyway). I shouldn’t have to give reasons for being on the sidewalk and I should expect the cop to know and respect my rights. If we can agree on all that, it’s probably not worth arguing about how justified a police officer is in feeling defensive when approaching an apparently peaceful member of the public.
More proof that there simply are not enough police in jail!
It’s well past time to reintroduce police and prosecutors to the core premise of their “get tough on crime” hypotheses - that being that jail time is itself an outstanding deterrent.
Whether or not they were buying a meal, most businesses don’t want to see even “potential” customers treated like that in front of their establishment. Ruby Tuesday has an opportunity here unless the management doesn’t care about racism (or customers).
If your goal is to avoid trouble, you will avoid trouble. If your goal is to make a point, you will make a point, but at what cost?
This comment, quite frankly, is fucking stupid, and it is not at all surprising that it came from a white man.
For a lot of people, and a lot of cops, merely existing as a non-white person is “causing trouble”. POC can’t just “avoid” trouble; merely existing is trouble for them. Merely existing is “making a point”.
The fact that you seem to have no ability to see the race (and gender) implications to this arrest is astounding to me. Are you really that self-involved and oblivious to the world around you?
And it is a fucking crime against humanity that you have to make this decision: do I act like a human being with rights and have a very real chance of being murdered by the people who are supposed to protect me, or do I act like a servile subhuman and probably live to take care of my family? You can say she was being dumb, you can say that “this is the way it is”, but it is 100% wrong and none of your rationalization changes that.
I don’t blame you for taking the easy way out… But the people who fight injustice on our behalf deserve our support and admiration, not mockery at best and more likely indifference. They are New York’s finest.
There’s absolutely no evidence they knew she was a “human rights lawyer” or that this was retaliation, which is what I was disputing. I wasn’t disputing she was arrested on a bullshit charge, just that the bullshit nature of the charge makes it unlikely they even knew she was a “human rights lawyer.”
…and you’ve just picked the sub-population that would think that policing the general public is the single worst job ever. Seriously, you’ve got to get off a bit on the power trip and projecting your will through government authority to be able to continue to function in the job. I know people who work in various police forces. To a man, every one who is a “beat cop” was the football playing bully type (and slightly dim). The intelligent artistic guy who started police work to get $ to go to art school worked a beat for a couple of years, then was going to quit. Magically (and somewhat surprisingly), he found himself promoted to detective/partial desk job etc…, and works within that aspect of policing to this day. Still kind of a shitty job, but not quite the day to day insanity of “working the street”.
Very important distinction between “blue/true” and “red/dead” if you’re in Crip territory. I assume the same would be true of Bloods, but I haven’t known any of them.
As stupid as it may seem to any rational/sane person, wearing the wrong “colors” in the wrong part of many places can be just as fatal as being black and reaching for your wallet when a cop asks for ID.
Ha! You could always complicate things one degree further by both being Dr’s…
My wife gets so pissed when something comes addressed to “Dr. and Mrs. (my last name)”. On a fairly telling note, I have noticed that we NEVER get mail addressed to “Dr. and Mr. (her last name)”, it usually being addressed to “the (her last name) family”. When it’s my last name, family mail gets addressed to the “(my last name) family” maybe 50% of the time. With her name, it’s 100%.
Community policing is about talking to people, not monitoring. So essentially, we’re talking about customer service people who aren’t psychotically motivated by tips. This doesn’t seem to be a particularly select section of the human spear.
