# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 196
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3901 "2015-06-20T12:46:34Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You are talking about things that happened decades ago, and are irrelevant to what’s happening today. But if such laws exist, the correct response is to change the laws, not complain about them being enforced. They’re relevant in the sense of history – modern mistreatment is the direct descendant of these past practices. > [@](#): > > No, they’re not. They are being treated correctly according to the law. Again, if the law is wrong, change it. Slaves were also “treated correctly according to the law” – they were still treated badly. I honestly have trouble believing that you think that someone can’t be both treated badly and treated correctly according to the law, though I believe that most modern mistreatment is actually unlawful but swept under the rug and/or mischaracterized by cops to protect themselves and each other. > [@](#): > > Your constant talk about how things were 100 years ago, and your refusal to acknowledge that things are so different in every way now as to be unrecognisable, is frankly mind-boggling Except that I have acknowledged this multiple times – and here I go again: things are much, much better now. They’re still far, far from perfect, and black people are still mistreated. > [@](#): > > , and I actually can’t understand why you keep doing it. I’m bringing up the past because of similarities and ancestry (in terms of actions and practices), even if the mistreatment today is much less severe, in general, then mistreatment in the past. But it’s still bad, and still unacceptable. > [@](#): > > Obviously sometimes investigations get it wrong, but what is happening in this thread, and more widely in the media, is the evidence becoming public, clearly showing that the police made a legally correct decision, and them still being criticised for it. That’s not the investigation getting it wrong. In some cases this might be true. In others they are getting it wrong. In others it’s impossible to tell because the police may not be being helpful and honest, and may be prioritizing protecting themselves over finding the truth, finding justice, and treating black people with respect. > [@](#): > > No, that’s nothing like what I’m arguing. I’m saying the police have a right, and a responsibility, to use force to arrest those who resist. I agree they have a right, and this is irrelevant to the question of mistreatment, since I’m not claiming that all uses of force by police against those who resist are mistreatment. I’ve said this many times. Irrelevant to what I’m saying. > [@](#): > > But you are defining “mistreatment” so broadly as to include a vast amount of cases where the police are acting how they are supposed to act, based on the law. Where did I do this? Cite the post in which I do this. I think you still are fighting straw-men and not my actual posts. I haven’t defined mistreatment this way. > [@](#): > > If the police arrest someone who is, in fact, breaking the law, that person has not been treated unfairly _by the police_, no matter what is done to anyone else who breaks that law, or any other law. It’s entirely possible that sometimes the police make a legal and lawful and appropriate arrest, but then at some point in the arrest process or afterwards, use unnecessary force that constitutes mistreatment. Cops don’t get to do anything they want to someone they arrest, and sometimes they go to far. Sometimes cops mistreat those they arrest. Not always, but sometimes. > [@](#): > > Yes, of course there needs to be protection against laws that specifically target a particular race or other group, but those protections have existed for decades. And yet it still happens. I trust black people. > [@](#): > > There is no legal behaviour by the police, or anyone else, that is even remotely comparable to lynching. Some cops have very likely gotten away with killing people in circumstances that should have constituted murder were they investigated properly. I wouldn’t consider this “legal behavior”, but it’s as bad as lynching. I don’t trust that the police and prosecutors always investigate these killings properly – I think this is a significant part of this ongoing problem. > [@](#): > > I believe that it exists as a problem, but for whatever reason this thread is filled with examples that are not mistreatment. Someone who attacks a cop, or ignores his instructions and instead reaches for a gun, or who resists arrest and requires restraining, is not being mistreated if they are injured or killed as a proportionate response to those actions. In those cases, the person responsible is the person who was injured or killed, no-one else. This has nothing to do with any mistreatment I’m discussing – obviously, proportionate responses are not mistreatment. > [@](#): > > An actual example of mistreatment was people being stopped and searched just because they were black, not because of any suspicious behaviour. But that was banned. It’s at that level that mistreatment happens, when innocent people are targeted. This is a good example, and it may still be going on in various communities even if there is no specific policy for it. From my readings, black drivers doing nothing wrong are still more likely to be stopped and searched then white drivers doing nothing wrong. > [@](#): > > And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment. When, collectively, have they been dishonest and inaccurate before? What were they wrong about? > [@](#): > > Have you stopped beating your wife? ??? > [@](#): > > Not with your absurdly broad description of “mistreatment”, no. What “absurdly broad description”? Where are you getting this? > [@](#): > > When “mistreatment” consists of being arrested for crimes actually committed then clearly the person arrested bears some responsibility. Where have I said that this constitutes mistreatment? For the record, simply being arrested for crimes committed is not mistreatment. > [@](#): > > And before you harp on about lynching again, that was never a legal response to someone being a criminal. Arrest always was and is. It was certainly de-facto legal in many communities, with police and authorities tolerating it or even taking part. And I don’t know why you’re comparing it to arrest – I never have. Mere arrest due to criminal actions is not mistreatment. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3902 "2015-06-20T12:50:19Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Michael Slager has been charged with murder, so it seems that the prosecutor and grand jury, far from wanting to protect the police, have investigated and found that there is a good chance that he’ll be convicted. We’ll see the totality of the evidence at the trial, but this certainly isn’t a case of police misconduct being swept under the rug. It’s my belief that this kind of thing is quite common, but very often in the past there was not enough evidence due to collective deceit by police involved (no video in most cases, obviously) and prosecutors tolerated this. In other words, in the many cases in which someone died and the cops who shot him say that he went for a gun or attacked them, they cops would routinely lie to protect themselves. Not in all cases, and not for all cops, but for some, and other cop witnesses would collaborate in this deceit due to intimidation or police culture. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3903 "2015-06-20T14:13:48Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s my belief that this kind of thing is quite common, but very often in the past there was not enough evidence due to collective deceit by police involved (no video in most cases, obviously) and prosecutors tolerated this. In other words, in the many cases in which someone died and the cops who shot him say that he went for a gun or attacked them, they cops would routinely lie to protect themselves. Not in all cases, and not for all cops, but for some, and other cop witnesses would collaborate in this deceit due to intimidation or police culture. You may be right. I believe that, in the past, it was common for people to exaggerate or outright lie about police mistreatment, and that is at least part of the reason for the vast reduction in the amount of complaints about police behaviour when body cameras are used. It unfortunately appears that they’re necessary to keep both the police and the public honest. It’s your constant refusal to accept that the public (of whatever race) are blameless and honest to a fault in their dealings with the police that’s so galling, and your repeated claims that people aren’t responsible for their own actions when dealing with the police. ---
**Author:** ![Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/son_of_a_rich/32/5439_2.png) [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Son_of_a_Rich)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3904 "2015-06-20T14:30:22Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I believe that, in the past, it was common for people to exaggerate or outright lie about police mistreatment, and that is at least part of the reason for the vast reduction in the amount of complaints about police behaviour when body cameras are used. Are these stats available online? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3905 "2015-06-20T14:49:39Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Slaves were also “treated correctly according to the law” – they were still treated badly. I honestly have trouble believing that you think that someone can’t be both treated badly and treated correctly according to the law, though I believe that most modern mistreatment is actually unlawful but swept under the rug and/or mischaracterized by cops to protect themselves and each other. I believe that if someone is being treated badly enough that it _should_ be illegal, but it isn’t, then the fault is with the law, not (necessarily) with the people doing the mistreating. I don’t believe that, for example, everyone who ever whipped a slave knew that they were doing wrong, and certainly for much of that time almost no-one would have considered that they were doing wrong. Times change, morals change, and laws change. > [@](#): > > Except that I have acknowledged this multiple times – and here I go again: things are much, much better now. They’re still far, far from perfect, and black people are still mistreated. Yes, they are. But your claim is much more than that, it’s that they are systematically mistreated because of their skin colour, despite the fact that such systematic mistreatment has been illegal in the US for 50 years. And that’s why I keep asking you to talk about innocent victims of mistreatment, not criminals, because mistreatment of people because they’re criminals - whilst still wrong - is a very different thing to mistreatment of people because of their skin colour. > [@](#): > > I’m bringing up the past because of similarities and ancestry (in terms of actions and practices), even if the mistreatment today is much less severe, in general, then mistreatment in the past. But it’s still bad, and still unacceptable. And that’s the problem, it’s not similar to the way it was over 50 years ago because, for one thing, it’s totally illegal. It’s not a difference of degree, it’s a fundamental difference in kind, as it is necessarily hidden. The days when a town or a company could say “no niggers here” are long, long gone. > [@](#): > > In some cases this might be true. In others they are getting it wrong. In others it’s impossible to tell because the police may not be being helpful and honest, and may be prioritizing protecting themselves over finding the truth, finding justice, and treating black people with respect. Maybe. But it’s abundantly clear from this thread that people here are deciding the police must be guilty on minimal evidence, and don’t care about truth, justice or respect for the police. You might say the police should be held to a higher standard, but I don’t accept that. Don’t hold other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself, that’s hypocritical. (Not directed specifically at you, from your willingness to actually debate this it’s clear you hold yourself to a high standard of honesty and reason). > [@](#): > > I agree they have a right, and this is irrelevant to the question of mistreatment, since I’m not claiming that all uses of force by police against those who resist are mistreatment. I’ve said this many times. Irrelevant to what I’m saying. > > Where did I do this? Cite the post in which I do this. I think you still are fighting straw-men and not my actual posts. I haven’t defined mistreatment this way. I’m struggling to tell what you’re actually complaining about that isn’t already illegal, then, and what you actually consider mistreatment. Eric Garner wasn’t mistreated, and nor was Michael Brown. If police statements are accurate, and the investigation’s still ongoing, then neither was Tamir Rice. If someone is arrested because they committed a crime, or injured or killed _because_ they resisted arrest or threatened a cop (not as punishment or revenge for, as a result of legitimate force to arrest or defend), they have not been mistreated. Do you agree? > [@](#): > > It’s entirely possible that sometimes the police make a legal and lawful and appropriate arrest, but then at some point in the arrest process or afterwards, use unnecessary force that constitutes mistreatment. Cops don’t get to do anything they want to someone they arrest, and sometimes they go to far. Sometimes cops mistreat those they arrest. Not always, but sometimes. Correct, and I suspect uncontroversial. > [@](#): > > And yet it still happens. I trust black people. All of them? Or more than other people? I don’t trust anyone who speaks on behalf of a group as a rule, and especially not when it’s in their interest to lie. Which is why I’m strongly in favour of police body cams, it will make it much harder for anyone to lie about what happened in any incident. You may think that because I’ve spoken strongly about the presumption of innocence I automatically believe the police. That’s not true, but what is true is that whether I trust them or not, as the accused, they are the one who’s statement needs to be disproved. Simply saying “I don’t trust them” doesn’t prove anything. > [@](#): > > Some cops have very likely gotten away with killing people in circumstances that should have constituted murder were they investigated properly. I wouldn’t consider this “legal behavior”, but it’s as bad as lynching. I don’t trust that the police and prosecutors always investigate these killings properly – I think this is a significant part of this ongoing problem. > > This has nothing to do with any mistreatment I’m discussing – obviously, proportionate responses are not mistreatment. There’s a contradiction here. You say you are fine with proportionate responses, but you don’t trust the people who determine what is or isn’t proportionate. So, basically, we’re left with you trusting one group over another, despite the fact that both have incentive to lie. > [@](#): > > This is a good example, and it may still be going on in various communities even if there is no specific policy for it. From my readings, black drivers doing nothing wrong are still more likely to be stopped and searched then white drivers doing nothing wrong. Quite possibly. Body cameras should help to prevent that, as with much else. > [@](#): > > When, collectively, have they been dishonest and inaccurate before? What were they wrong about? > > ??? I didn’t say that, and my response was a standard rhetorical device used to illuminate your leading question that’s impossible to answer fairly. > [@](#): > > Where have I said that this constitutes mistreatment? For the record, simply being arrested for crimes committed is not mistreatment. I’m glad you’ve changed your view on that. Perhaps you could mention it to whoever it was upthread who replied to me with “fuck you” for saying exactly that. > [@](#): > > It was certainly de-facto legal in many communities, with police and authorities tolerating it or even taking part. And I don’t know why you’re comparing it to arrest – I never have. Mere arrest due to criminal actions is not mistreatment. There’s no such thing as “de facto legal”, it was clearly always illegal. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3906 "2015-06-20T14:52:10Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You may be right. I believe that, in the past, it was common for people to exaggerate or outright lie about police mistreatment, and that is at least part of the reason for the vast reduction in the amount of complaints about police behaviour when body cameras are used. It unfortunately appears that they’re necessary to keep both the police and the public honest. Even if we disagree on why exactly they may be needed, at least we agree that they are needed. > [@](#): > > It’s your constant refusal to accept that the public (of whatever race) are blameless and honest to a fault in their dealings with the police that’s so galling I haven’t done this. Lots of individuals, black and white, don’t behave properly in many circumstances. I’m saying that such behavior is absolutely irrelevant with regards to the issue of police mistreatment of black people. Police mistreatment of black people exists and has nothing to do with the behavior of black people. I’m not talking about lawful and reasonable uses of force, I’m only talking about mistreatment. > [@](#): > > , and your repeated claims that people aren’t responsible for their own actions when dealing with the police. I haven’t made this claim once, much less repeated it. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3907 "2015-06-20T14:58:50Z")
> [@Son\_of\_a\_Rich](#): > > Are these stats available online? Here’s[an article](http://rt.com/usa/217483-police-body-cameras-study/) which contains this - > [@](#): > > During the 12-month experiment, the police department also saw a reduction in citizens’ complaints compared with previous years, from 0.7 complaints per every 1,000 police contacts with the public to 0.07 complaints per 1,000 contacts. It’s clear that a lot of that is from improved police behaviour, but unless you believe that every single complaint about the police had merit beforehand, the some will have come from less frivolous complaints. Also from the article - > [@](#): > > “So much of what goes on in the field is ‘he-said-she-said,’ and the camera offers an objective perspective,” Bratton told the Times. “Officers not familiar with the technology may see it as something harmful. But the irony is, officers actually tend to benefit. Very often, the officer’s version of events is the accurate version.” No stats, but I find it believable. [Here’s](http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/first-scientific-report-shows-police-body-worn-cameras-can-prevent-unacceptable-use-of-force) an in depth article from what I hope is a reliable source on the efficacy of body cams in general, which I’ve not read all of yet. Even if I’m wrong, and the entire reason that body cameras reduce complaints is because the police who wear them act better, I’d still fully support them. Both the public and the police will realise that the other will find it much harder to lie about what’s happening, which will hopefully lead to more respect on both sides. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3908 "2015-06-20T15:04:59Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Police mistreatment of black people exists and has nothing to do with the behavior of black people. Do you really not accept that both sides can be at fault in a situation? If someone punches a cop, and the cop then beats him within an inch of his life in revenge, both bear some responsibility for the result. In that case the cop far more responsibility, but it wouldn’t have happened without the guy acting illegally in the first place. This is _not_ victim blaming, it’s blaming someone for the result of their _criminal_ activity. Example. If you stole my girlfriend, and I beat you, I would have full responsibility. If you stole my wallet and I beat you, you would have some responsibility. Doesn’t change the fact that in either case I should be convicted, but in the latter case you could and should have acted differently, and prevented your own suffering. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3909 "2015-06-20T15:16:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I believe that if someone is being treated badly enough that it _should_ be illegal, but it isn’t, then the fault is with the law, not (necessarily) with the people doing the mistreating. I don’t believe that, for example, everyone who ever whipped a slave knew that they were doing wrong, and certainly for much of that time almost no-one would have considered that they were doing wrong. Times change, morals change, and laws change. Obviously slave owners (those mother fuckers) thought they were doing right by whipping slaves. Lynchers thought lynching was right. And cops who mistreat black people probably think they’re in the right to. I don’t think it matters – it’s wrong, it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now, and considering the way times have change, cops today who mistreat have less excuse than past abusers. In such cases in which mistreatment is legal (like, say, if just black people are arrested for a certain crime), the fault lies with the law, the lawmakers, _and those who institute the law_. I was in the military – if I was ordered to mistreat someone, and I obeyed the order, the fault would lie with both the superior who ordered me to do it and with me for obeying the order. So it goes for any cops who continue mistreatment or stand by while it occurs that is ordered by superiors or by police culture. > [@](#): > > Yes, they are. But your claim is much more than that, it’s that they are systematically mistreated because of their skin colour, despite the fact that such systematic mistreatment has been illegal in the US for 50 years. Such mistreatment was illegal in many places 100 years ago, and it still occurred. It surely occurs a lot less now, but I believe it still occurs. > [@](#): > > And that’s why I keep asking you to talk about innocent victims of mistreatment, not criminals, because mistreatment of people because they’re criminals - whilst still wrong - is a very different thing to mistreatment of people because of their skin colour. I talk about both – they’re both unacceptable. It’s unacceptable if a criminal is arrested and beaten to death due to excessive force, and it’s unacceptable if an innocent person is detained and beaten to injury despite doing nothing wrong. But this is the first time that I can recall that you’ve admitted that criminals can actually be mistreated by police – thank you. > [@](#): > > And that’s the problem, it’s not similar to the way it was over 50 years ago because, for one thing, it’s totally illegal. It was totally illegal in many places 100 years ago, and it still happened. Police culture, tradition, and local custom can and has overridden law. It still might in some cases. > [@](#): > > It’s not a difference of degree, it’s a fundamental difference in kind, as it is necessarily hidden. The days when a town or a company could say “no niggers here” are long, long gone. I disagree on the first point – many such mistreatments in the past were similarly hidden. I agree that such overt and open mistreatment is entirely (or almost entirely) over. > [@](#): > > Maybe. But it’s abundantly clear from this thread that people here are deciding the police must be guilty on minimal evidence, and don’t care about truth, justice or respect for the police. You might say the police should be held to a higher standard, but I don’t accept that. Don’t hold other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself, that’s hypocritical. (Not directed specifically at you, from your willingness to actually debate this it’s clear you hold yourself to a high standard of honesty and reason). I do hold the police to a higher standard, but I don’t decide they’re guilty on “minimal evidence”. I often don’t accept police findings and investigations – it seems clear, at least to me, that the first statements of police officers often conflict with video evidence. This leads me to be very skeptical of the statements of police officers when no video is present – even though much or most police officers (including my own family members) are honest and decent folks. I think most of these incidents are perpetrated by that minority of cops who are not so honest and decent. > [@](#): > > I’m struggling to tell what you’re actually complaining about that isn’t already illegal, then, and what you actually consider mistreatment. Eric Garner wasn’t mistreated, and nor was Michael Brown. I’m far from convinced about Garner – in my mind, it was clear that he was in serious physical distress long before he actually died, and in my mind the police were negligent. They could and should have reasonably taken action that would have prevented his death without increasing any significant danger to themselves. > [@](#): > > If police statements are accurate, and the investigation’s still ongoing, then neither was Tamir Rice. From what I’ve seen of the video evidence, the police statements in the Tamir Rice case are not accurate. > [@](#): > > If someone is arrested because they committed a crime, or injured or killed _because_ they resisted arrest or threatened a cop (not as punishment or revenge for, as a result of legitimate force to arrest or defend), they have not been mistreated. Do you agree? It depends on the circumstances. If you are stipulating that the force was not excessive, then I agree. If you’re not, then I disagree, because in some cases I believe excessive force has been utilized against an arrestee who resisted or threatened a cop. > [@](#): > > All of them? Not every single one, but all of them collectively – meaning that if ~80 to 90% of black people are saying something about the treatment of black people, that is by far the best source for an accurate picture of what’s going on. > [@](#): > > Or more than other people? When it comes to mistreatment of black people? Absolutely. Black people know more about the treatment of black people then white people or other racial groups, as a rule, in general. > [@](#): > > I don’t trust anyone who speaks on behalf of a group as a rule, and especially not when it’s in their interest to lie. I’m not talking about those who speak on behalf of black people – I’m talking about black people collectively, whose views I’ve gathered from personal interactions, reading about polling, stories by journalists, and the like. The views of most black people in America on things like police mistreatment can be gathered with modern journalistic research (like polling). > [@](#): > > Which is why I’m strongly in favour of police body cams, it will make it much harder for anyone to lie about what happened in any incident. Me too. > [@](#): > > You may think that because I’ve spoken strongly about the presumption of innocence I automatically believe the police. That’s not true, but what is true is that whether I trust them or not, as the accused, they are the one who’s statement needs to be disproved. Simply saying “I don’t trust them” doesn’t prove anything. In general, I don’t trust the statements of a police officer involved in possible mistreatment any more (or any less) then the statement of the accuser/victim or witnesses, unless other evidence comes to light. > [@](#): > > There’s a contradiction here. You say you are fine with proportionate responses, but you don’t trust the people who determine what is or isn’t proportionate. So, basically, we’re left with you trusting one group over another, despite the fact that both have incentive to lie. I’m fine with actual proportionate responses – and from what I’ve seen, the police have often been wrong about what constitutes proportionate response. I don’t trust them less then the accusers/witnesses, but I don’t trust them more either, barring other evidence. > [@](#): > > Quite possibly. Body cameras should help to prevent that, as with much else. Okay. > [@](#): > > I didn’t say that, and my response was a standard rhetorical device used to illuminate your leading question that’s impossible to answer fairly. You said “And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.” I’m asking you to clarify that statement – when, do you believe, that black Americans (collectively, since that’s what I’ve asserted – if you’re only saying that some individual black Americans at some point have lied or were inaccurate, then this is irrelevant) have been dishonest or inaccurate about the treatment of black people in America? > [@](#): > > I’m glad you’ve changed your view on that. Perhaps you could mention it to whoever it was upthread who replied to me with “fuck you” for saying exactly that. I didn’t change my view – you had it wrong the first time. If I see posts that I disagree with, I’ll try and post a response. > [@](#): > > There’s no such thing as “de facto legal”, it was clearly always illegal. Yes there is – “[de facto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto)” is a well established legal principle, and there have been many practices that constituted mistreatment of black people that were not sanctioned by law but rather by tradition and custom. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3910 "2015-06-20T15:21:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Do you really not accept that both sides can be at fault in a situation? Sure, but not in the same way you do, I think. > [@](#): > > If someone punches a cop, and the cop then beats him within an inch of his life in revenge, both bear some responsibility for the result. In that case the cop far more responsibility, but it wouldn’t have happened without the guy acting illegally in the first place. In my view, the first guy bears responsibility for doing something wrong – if he was convicted for assaulting a police officer, he bears sole responsibility for his conviction. But he bears no responsibility, in my view, for being severely beaten – any more then 100 years ago a black man would bear responsibility for being lynched for, say, groping a white woman. > [@](#): > > This is _not_ victim blaming, it’s blaming someone for the result of their _criminal_ activity. Not to me – to me it’s victim blaming because they _are victims of brutality_. It wouldn’t be victim blaming if you said “he should be arrested and go to jail for assault” – it’s victim blaming, to me, if you say “he bears some responsibility for being beaten within an inch of his life”. In my view, only the brutalizer is responsible for brutality. > [@](#): > > Example. If you stole my girlfriend, and I beat you, I would have full responsibility. If you stole my wallet and I beat you, you would have some responsibility. Doesn’t change the fact that in either case I should be convicted, but in the latter case you could and should have acted differently, and prevented your own suffering. It depends, for the wallet thing, in my view. Do you chase me, and we struggle, and in the process of you recovering your wallet you beat me? Then I bear full responsibility. Do you track me down, kick down my door, recover your wallet on my night stand, and then pull me out of bed and beat me after you have your wallet back? Then it’s entirely your responsibility, in my view. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3911 "2015-06-20T16:27:37Z")
I’m not talking about whether someone should be tried and convicted for the original offence, I’m saying they bear some responsibility for the follow up. For example, if you leave your door unlocked and your car is stolen, you bear some responsibility for that, and it will affect your insurance payout - even though it’s not illegal to leave your door unlocked. Far more so if you commit a crime that leads to you being harmed. I’d be surprised if the courts didn’t see it the same way when awarding damages, should you sue me in this hypothetical. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3912 "2015-06-20T16:29:52Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > …my girlfriend… Pics, or it didn’t happen. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3913 "2015-06-20T16:54:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Obviously slave owners (those mother fuckers) thought they were doing right by whipping slaves. Lynchers thought lynching was right. And cops who mistreat black people probably think they’re in the right to. I don’t think it matters – it’s wrong, it was wrong then, and it’s wrong now, and considering the way times have change, cops today who mistreat have less excuse than past abusers. You need to judge them by the moral standards of the time, not those of today. I’m not going to suggest a cut off date, but there’s been many times in history where whipping slaves was both legally and morally acceptable. There’s no such thing as objective morality, just a consensus at a given time. > [@](#): > > But this is the first time that I can recall that you’ve admitted that criminals can actually be mistreated by police – thank you. I’ve never claimed otherwise, I’ve said I care far less about the mistreatment of criminals than innocent people. > [@](#): > > I do hold the police to a higher standard, but I don’t decide they’re guilty on “minimal evidence”. I often don’t accept police findings and investigations – it seems clear, at least to me, that the first statements of police officers often conflict with video evidence. This leads me to be very skeptical of the statements of police officers when no video is present – even though much or most police officers (including my own family members) are honest and decent folks. I think most of these incidents are perpetrated by that minority of cops who are not so honest and decent. So be sceptical, but remember that unless you have good reason to believe one statement over another all you can say is that you don’t know what occurred. Just because you don’t believe the cop doesn’t mean you can assume the opposite of what he says. > [@](#): > > I’m far from convinced about Garner – in my mind, it was clear that he was in serious physical distress long before he actually died, and in my mind the police were negligent. They could and should have reasonably taken action that would have prevented his death without increasing any significant danger to themselves. He could have eased his distress by stopping struggling. If someone’s been violent and continues to resist, the police are not being negligent by continuing to restrain him. > [@](#): > > From what I’ve seen of the video evidence, the police statements in the Tamir Rice case are not accurate. All I’ve seen is a grainy video where he appears to reach towards his waist, what else have you seen? Because that video doesn’t seem to prove the police were lying. If he was reaching for what the police reasonably believed was a gun, it seems like clear cut self defence to me. Which doesn’t mean, to bring the other discussion into this, that the police bear no responsibility for his death, necessarily, but it would mean that they are not criminally responsible. > [@](#): > > Not every single one, but all of them collectively – meaning that if ~80 to 90% of black people are saying something about the treatment of black people, that is by far the best source for an accurate picture of what’s going on. No, proper research would be by far the best source. What you have is a large amount of anecdotes, that need proper analysis to become real data. Whilst there is obviously some mistreatment of black people, you don’t know without proper research how much of that is due to racism, and how much to other factors, and how much is the same stuff that everybody gets that is falsely being claimed as happening only or mostly to minorities. > [@](#): > > I’m not talking about those who speak on behalf of black people – I’m talking about black people collectively, whose views I’ve gathered from personal interactions, reading about polling, stories by journalists, and the like. The views of most black people in America on things like police mistreatment can be gathered with modern journalistic research (like polling). That means you know what black people _believe_ is happening. That will presumably be based in part on what is actually happening, but not completely, and it tells you nothing about _why_ they are happening - something essential to know if you want to change things. If black people say they are being mistreated by cops, and cops say they’re not, it’s pointless to assume that one side or the other is lying. What needs to happen is to understand why the two groups believe such different things about the same events. And you won’t get that by only listening to one side. Again, body cameras will help with all of this, by making what _actually_ happens in these encounters known. > [@](#): > > In general, I don’t trust the statements of a police officer involved in possible mistreatment any more (or any less) then the statement of the accuser/victim or witnesses, unless other evidence comes to light. Which means that you simply don’t know whether or not there’s any mistreatment. > [@](#): > > I’m fine with actual proportionate responses – and from what I’ve seen, the police have often been wrong about what constitutes proportionate response. I don’t trust them less then the accusers/witnesses, but I don’t trust them more either, barring other evidence. Wrong by your own personal standards, or by the standards set by law and interpreted by the courts? Because it’s becoming increasingly clear that those standards differ massively. > [@](#): > > You said “And I don’t believe that this is the first time in history that black Americans have been dishonest or inaccurate about their treatment.” I’m asking you to clarify that statement – when, do you believe, that black Americans (collectively, since that’s what I’ve asserted – if you’re only saying that some individual black Americans at some point have lied or were inaccurate, then this is irrelevant) have been dishonest or inaccurate about the treatment of black people in America? I don’t believe that black Americans are an homogenous enough group that they can be either right or wrong about anything, any more than white Americans or Muslim women. It’s a leading question with no appropriate answer, designed to make me look bad no matter what I say. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3914 "2015-06-20T16:56:11Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Pics, or it didn’t happen. She exists in the same way that money in my wallet worth stealing exists, which is to say hypothetically. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3915 "2015-06-20T16:57:48Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > One way to tell if it is a problem or not is to look at what proportion of the searches find something. If it’s the same proportion for black and white people, then there’s no obvious problem. If, like with stop and search, more black people are being stopped but less are found to be doing something wrong, then there is a problem. > > Another way to tell, hopefully, will be the increased use of body cameras, so if someone is stopped it will be easier to judge if their behaviour was suspicious after the fact, rather than just relying on what people report. > > So, my answer is that, based solely on your statistics, it’s impossible to know whether there’s a problem. You’re avoiding the hypothetical. A strain of argument that you keep making is that the actions of the cops are within the law in many of these cases, and that as long as the actions are within the law, there is no problem, or if there is, it’s the law that needs to change. I’m suggesting as a hypothetical (without claiming I have proven that it applies to the real life situation) in which all cops are obeying the law, but within the range of obeying the law, they are acting measurably different based on the race of the suspect involved. In that hypothetical, with no regard for whether or not you think it fairly describes the real world USA of today, are things “OK”? Is there a problem? Should people be protesting and desiring change? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3916 "2015-06-20T17:10:05Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > You’re avoiding the hypothetical. A strain of argument that you keep making is that the actions of the cops are within the law in many of these cases, and that as long as the actions are within the law, there is no problem, or if there is, it’s the law that needs to change. > > I’m suggesting as a hypothetical (without claiming I have proven that it applies to the real life situation) in which all cops are obeying the law, but within the range of obeying the law, they are acting measurably different based on the race of the suspect involved. > > In that hypothetical, with no regard for whether or not you think it fairly describes the real world USA of today, are things “OK”? Is there a problem? Should people be protesting and desiring change? If the law allows measurably different treatment of people _based on_ their race, the law should be changed. I don’t think many people would disagree with that. What I think you’re actually asking is whether it’s acceptable for measurably different treatment to occur, within the law, to different racial populations without any actual incident being racially motivated. I think that has to be acceptable. What’s the other option, introduce racial quotas for arrests? I would say that if such differences occur then it’s a problem with society, not the law, and needs to be addressed at that level, which will mean things like improved education, some means of increasing social mobility, better mental health treatment and many other things not directly connected with any interactions between police and public. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3917 "2015-06-20T17:11:47Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I’m suggesting as a hypothetical (without claiming I have proven that it applies to the real life situation) in which all cops are obeying the law, but within the range of obeying the law, they are acting measurably different based on the race of the suspect involved. > > In that hypothetical, with no regard for whether or not you think it fairly describes the real world USA of today, are things “OK”? Is there a problem? Should people be protesting and desiring change? That’s a matter that ought to be addressed through the legislative process, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3918 "2015-06-20T17:14:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Michael Slager has been charged with murder, so it seems that the prosecutor and grand jury, far from wanting to protect the police, have investigated and found that there is a good chance that he’ll be convicted. We’ll see the totality of the evidence at the trial, but this certainly isn’t a case of police misconduct being swept under the rug. How confident are you in that if the video didn’t exist? Say there was just the eyewitness testimony of the person who took the video? Would there have been an indictment? Further, are you suggesting that this was a unique situation - police shooting someone, then planting a weapon on the body? Anyway, Smapti said name one case, and I did, so I look forward to his concession. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3919 "2015-06-20T17:20:51Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Anyway, Smapti said name one case, and I did, so I look forward to his concession. No, you didn’t. I asked you for a description of a case that consisted of; > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, look, someone is running away from a traffic stop. Better shoot him 5 or 6 times in the back, just to be safe. [Which is _not_ what happened in the Walter Scott case;](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott#Shooting) > [@](#): > > At 9:30 a.m., April 4, 2015, in the parking lot of an auto parts store at 1945 Remount Road, Slager stopped Scott for a non-functioning third brake light. Scott was driving a 1991 Mercedes that he had just bought from a neighbor and was headed to the auto parts store when he was stopped, according to his brother. The video from Slager’s dashcam shows him approaching Scott’s car, speaking to Scott, and then returning to his patrol car. Scott exited his car and fled, and Slager gave chase. Scott was unarmed. > > Slager pursued Scott to a lot behind a pawn shop at 5654 Rivers Avenue, where a scuffle ensued. Slager fired his Taser, according to the incident report and city officials, and police said Scott was hit at least once. Scott then fled again, and Slager drew his handgun and fired eight rounds at him from behind. A lawyer for Scott’s family said the coroner had told him that Scott was struck five times—three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks, and once in the ear, with at least one bullet entering his heart. There are quite a few events that you’ve left out there in order to prop up your bizarre assertion that acknowledging people have a right to self-defense means they have carte blanche to shoot everyone they see. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3920 "2015-06-20T17:27:23Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > your bizarre assertion that acknowledging people have a right to self-defense means they have carte blanche to shoot everyone they see. ROTFL! That has been your assertion vis a vis police shooting people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=195) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=197)