Slashdot Mirror


Cops 101: NYC High School Teaches How To Behave During Stop-and-Frisk

HughPickens.com writes Kate Briquelet reports in the NY Post that Principal Mark Federman of East Side Community HS has invited the New York Civil Liberties Union to give a two-day training session to 450 students on interacting with police. "We're not going to candy-coat things — we have a problem in our city that's affecting young men of color and all of our students," says Federman. "It's not about the police being bad. This isn't anti-police as much as it's pro-young people ... It's about what to do when kids are put in a position where they feel powerless and uncomfortable." The hourlong workshops — held in small classroom sessions during advisory periods — focused on the NYPD's stop-and-frisk program and how to exercise Fourth Amendment rights when being stopped and questioned in a car or at home.

Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice. "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. NYCLU representatives told kids to be polite and to keep their hands out of their pockets. But they also told students they don't have to show ID or consent to searches, that it's best to remain silent, and how to file a complaint against an officer. Candis Tolliver, NYCLU's associate director for advocacy, says was the first time she trained an entire high school. "This is not about teaching kids how to get away with a crime or being disrespectful. This is about making sure both sides are walking away from the situation safe and in control."

481 comments

  1. Obligatory by Monoman · · Score: 4, Funny

    How not to get your @ass kicked when you get pulled over by the police - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    --
    Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    1. Re:Obligatory by Monoman · · Score: 1

      yay typo!

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
    2. Re:Obligatory by hodet · · Score: 1

      kicked or capped?

    3. Re:Obligatory by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I just assumed you were talking to a gimmick twitter account who posts nothing but 140 character fart noises.

    4. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's as easy as:

      1) Shut the fuck up. You are not obligated to say a word to cops. You don't even have to tell them your name.
      2) Follow their orders and do not become combative.
      3) If you are wrongfully arrested, hire a lawyer and sue the police department along with the offending cop individually. Ask for a settlement of millions and negotiate down as necessary and realistic. Post story, lawsuit results and pictures of cop online for all to see.

    5. Re:Obligatory by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You forgot...

      4) Profit!!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    6. Re: Obligatory by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure you won't be allowed to do your final step of you accept a settlement.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:Obligatory by spacepimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The issue is with number two. (2) Follow their orders and do not become combative.). Following orders which are not legal, and are unconstitutional, out of fear for personal safety means that we are literally living in a Police state. Yes we know it is illegal, but he might kill you for pointing it out to him... The issue is so systemically out of control that it needs much more than advice on how not to get killed by cops.

    8. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Am I being detained? Am I free to go?

    9. Re:Obligatory by mi · · Score: 1

      Following orders which are not legal, and are unconstitutional, out of fear for personal safety means that we are literally living in a Police state.

      Whether that's true or not — the exact definition of "police state" varies — you still better follow police' orders. If only to strengthen your subsequent lawsuit...

      Yes we know it is illegal, but he might kill you for pointing it out to him...

      No, getting killed by a policeman remains most unlikely. Whenever that happens, we see it on TV, which means, that — like mass-shootings — such incidents remain rather rare. No, you will not be killed — but you may be arrested or otherwise inconvenienced. Police don't seem to notice the bizarre circularity of the "arrested for resisting arrest" logic... Smile and follow his orders — then serve your revenge cold.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Obligatory by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Police don't seem to notice the bizarre circularity of the "arrested for resisting arrest" logic

      Cops are mostly dumb, I don't expect them to have any grasp of logic. Problem is, the kangaroo kourts are packed full o' smart-but-evil lawyers and officials who know this kind of logic is irrational, but still think it's an a-okay pretext to destroy the lives of commoners.

    11. Re:Obligatory by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      IIRC, you are required to identify yourself to a police officer. You are not legally required to show ID. You do not have to consent to any search. (You may find it convenient to show ID, and you certainly don't want to try to physically stop an officer from doing something. Just calmly make it clear that you do not consent to any search while they're patting you down.) Stay polite and calm.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, you shouldn't lie about your identity but you are not required to identify yourself to police. You don't have to say a word to them.

    13. Re:Obligatory by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      So the first order is "Tell me your name". Which of your "easy as" steps are you going to break first?

    14. Re:Obligatory by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      You can't sue them if you consent to being searched. You cannot sue them if they demand ID and then you produce it. In the end being arrested for upholding my rights is something I can sue for. Otherwise they can search and beat me all day and be completely in their rights about it.

    15. Re:Obligatory by mi · · Score: 1

      You can't sue them if you consent to being searched.

      So? Do not consent — that's what the NYCLU is teaching — but do obey their orders anyway.

      beat me all day and be completely in their rights about it.

      Huh? Of course, they can not beat you — unless you resist them. So do not resist...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    16. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You follow orders to survive. You sue to get justice. Remember when Nader got kicked off the premises for the debates. He took it up to the point where he made the cop acknowledge he was doing something illegal then left the premises as ordered. Followed up with a suit and won. It's not a perfect system but people getting shot trying to defend their constitutional rights can get misconstrued into disorderly conduct, resisting arrest etc. Unless you know cameras are rolling then be wary.

    17. Re:Obligatory by leslie.satenstein · · Score: 1

      How not to get your @ass kicked when you get pulled over by the police - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

      As a Canadian, I would never have believed that NY City and America has or allows a Stop and Frisk search. God, you are in a police state. WTF is happening to tolerate that. Ohh, I know... Schools are for profit. Many students can't afford to go to school, many schools can't afford books, so the kids are out in the streets with prayer books and sticks of gum.

    18. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police cannot order you to allow them to search you nor can they order you to produce an ID, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

    19. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police cannot order you to provide your name.

    20. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police can only stop and frisk you if they have probable cause to think you are breaking the law or have broken the law, otherwise you can sue for harassment. I do agree that things in the US are becoming worse every day though.

    21. Re:Obligatory by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Like everything in law, it depends. Most states have a compulsory ID law. You must present either your DL or an age of majority card. Failure to present ID could result in your arrest until they can determine if you are wanted or not. Contrary to popular belief, being black or another minority doesn't influence that decision. I know someone that was locked up over a weekend over that. After they showed them their ID, on Monday when they finally got it and they simply said - have a nice day. Have a nice fucking day? That didn't cut it.

      Same advice the crazy leftists give their paid protesters. Make sure they have an ID when they go to protest.

    22. Re:Obligatory by fluffy99 · · Score: 1

      IIRC, you are required to identify yourself to a police officer. You are not legally required to show ID.

      Depends on the situation and the particular state. Many states require that the officer have a reasonable suspicion for the stop, which just means being able to concoct one if challenged about it later. Typically it'll end up something like "there was a robbery the night before and he sort of matched the description." Obviously you can ask the officer why he wants you to identify yourself, but generally challenging him won't help. In the states and situations where you are not required to, so you can politely decline and ask if you are free to go.

      As you pointed out, above all, be polite and non-threatening be assertive of your rights. Yelling at the cop or moving in a way that can be interpreted as threatening will escalate the situation, sometimes with deadly consequences. We saw this is Ferguson when he told the cop f-u and then took a swing at him. It happened in NY when he refused to be arrested and the officers responded by physically wrestling him to the ground (which caused a fatal asthma/heart attack. The drug dealer who ran and then tried to pull something out of his pocket while struggling spooked the officer who responded with deadly force.

      I'd like to see the police force get similar training, so they are fully aware of the rights they are supposed to protect. There is obviously an issue where some officers don't fully appreciate the concept of continuum of force, or the difference between reasonable force and justifiable force. For example you don't tase a 78-yr old wheelchair bound women over a noise complaint. Or participate in a high-speed pursuit and run the guy off the road at 100mph (you let him go and pick him up later since you have his license plate).

  2. Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civics classes have been sorely missing from school curriculums and this is exactly the kind of civics information people need. Add in some basics on personal freedoms and rights, civic duties, local government, and taxation and you've got an educated populace.

    1. Re: Civics class by frikken+lazerz · · Score: 1, Troll

      How about morals class? Teach people to how to respect one another and treat others the way they'd like to be treated themselves. Let's encourage strong families that stay together and teach kids to respect their elders. And let's teach today's men to stop behaving like women and today's women to stop behaving like men while we're at it. If the moral fabric of society keeps falling apart, we are doomed.

    2. Re: Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly does "encourage strong families that stay together" mean? Morale fabric is an evolving thing. To say the morals of yesterday should continue is to say that everything bad about yesterday should be maintained, as it was part of the "moral fabric". We are better to continue the ideals that make us a better society and get rid of those that don't. Staying in an unhealthy relationship or men behaving like men is not making society better, just making some people nostalgic.

    3. Re: Civics class by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Teach people to how to respect one another and treat others the way they'd like to be treated themselves.

      Yes, that should certainly be part of police training.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    4. Re: Civics class by Entropius · · Score: 1

      And let's teach today's men to stop behaving like women and today's women to stop behaving like men while we're at it.

      In what ways do today's men behave like women that you'd like to stop, and in what ways do today's women behave like men?

      How would you like to see men and women behave differently?

    5. Re: Civics class by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      How about morals class? Teach people to how to respect one another and treat others the way they'd like to be treated themselves. Let's encourage strong families that stay together and teach kids to respect their elders. And let's teach today's men to stop behaving like women and today's women to stop behaving like men while we're at it.>>>>>> If the moral fabric of society keeps falling apart, we are doomed.

      [Emphasis Added]

      And who gets to decide which is which? You? That kind of bigoted twaddle isn't so different from the racism being discussed here.

      What is more, morality is an individual thing. Many people share similar attitudes and ideas about good ways to live. But morality is sum total of the choices you make when faced with situations that call for a moral choice (e.g., I found a wallet. Do I return it with or without the cash that was in it?). Your morality is not my morality, and mine isn't anyone else's.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    6. Re:Civics class by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      And to vote. The largest Republican majority in the House since 1928 (before the 1929 stock market crash and 1930's depression) came about from the lowest voter turnout in 70 years (World War II).

    7. Re: Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which decade's Immutable And Eternal Essences of Man and Woman did you have in mind?

    8. Re: Civics class by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1
      You should have stopped with this:

      Teach people to how to respect one another and treat others the way they'd like to be treated themselves.

      I'm not interested in conforming to your ideal of masculinity.

    9. Re: Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the cops went to school, presumably they would get the morals class too.

      It's not like they grow cops from teeth sown into a freshly plowed field.

    10. Re: Civics class by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I'm going to say that a family unit, as a means by which people are tied together by strong bonds, encouraged by millions of years of evolution, is going to be useful.

      Yes, morals can change, and perhaps it is wrong to call families part of "morality", but generally you're going to be both best looked out for and best restrained by your family.

      There seems to be a tendency today for the state to look out for charity and to act as nanny. The state sucks at that because the component individuals of the state may or may not care about you, but the system in total definitely does not. You're a budget item that can be slashed, and eventually you will be. If the state was better at that, you wouldn't see nearly the same problems with poor kids.

      Your family is much more likely to care about you, possibly even more than they care about their own personal survival. There is no state program that will ever achieve that level of concern for you. I understand that not all families are created equal, and some are so bad that even the state is sometimes better, but for the most part, the great balance of the problem is when the parents are well-meaning but cannot spend the necessary time due to having to work all the time to make ends meet, or because they are a single parent, or both.

      The fact is that families tend to work better when they are larger, not smaller, and today, there is the opposite trend in the US. I personally keep more to myself, but I still understand the value of my family, even if I am not incredibly involved. Families are a resource for you and a source of strength that may require effort from you, but probably a lot less that you might get back from it.

      I understand that "Family Values" is a slogan for a particular sort of political and moral position, but maintaining family relationships does not require you to be a conservative, or religious, or to adhere to the same sort of positions of those groups. You merely need to understand the value of a familial relationship which nature has caused our species to develop in order to provide support and protection. It is too bad that it has been lumped together with a particular sort of thought.

    11. Re: Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's teach today's men to stop behaving like women and today's women to stop behaving like men while we're at it.

      In what ways do today's men behave like women that you'd like to stop, and in what ways do today's women behave like men?

      How would you like to see men and women behave differently?

      Well, I'm guessing that frikken lazerz is some sort of Internet Tough Guy(TM). If you are a guy and you don't always carry a gun to protect your family then I'm sure, from his point of view, you would be some sort of prissy little nancy-boy. On the other hand, if you are a woman who insists on being respected as an equal in the office then you are obviously a feminazi lesbian bitch who considers all men potential rapists. Of course, if I've misread frikken lazerz meaning, he is welcome to clarify his statement. But I'm fairly confident in placing my bets on which way this will go.

    12. Re: Civics class by frikken+lazerz · · Score: 1

      It's not just someone's ideal. It's human nature, based on years of evolutionary pressure. It might not be your ideal, but it's reality.

    13. Re: Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were an alpha and could be masculine and get many women and be powerful,you would. The only reason you "dont want to conform" is because you cant. Ass fucking beta bitch.

    14. Re: Civics class by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Resorting to making an appeal to nature to persuade me that I should be a macho man, or hate myself for not being macho? You fail.

    15. Re: Civics class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you wish he'd fuck your ass.

    16. Re: Civics class by Entropius · · Score: 1

      I would hope men and women would carry guns if needed to protect their family, and that men and women would like respect at work.

      (At work today, a physics professor asked a lady in the conference room "Ah, are you someone's wife?" No -- she is an English professor.)

    17. Re: Civics class by cduffy · · Score: 1

      From my perspective, it tends to be the people who say they support "family values" that actually support legal and social measures that keep families small.

      Look at who it is defending zoning laws enforcing "single-family household" status as excluding larger chosen (non-blood-related) families, and compare to who it is embracing legal and social norms that allow maximum flexibility in assembling a strong, self-supporting structure from such components as available. Look at who is trying to restrict legal marriage and adoption and who is trying to extend it. Look at the group voting for judges that view large aggregated families-of-choice as evidence of perversion -- from which children should be protected -- and the group voting for judges who view a large, stable support network built from people who love and care for each other as precisely that. I'm all for "family values", in by that one means values that support large and strong families... but if I say "family values" in public to a random stranger, what's going to come to their mind is not the same as what I'm actually referring to.

      I say this as someone who is overwhelmingly happy to have participated in the upbringing of children -- two of whom are now legal adults -- in whose genes I have no role, but to whose memes and ethics I am gratified to have contributed. I'm glad to have contributed to the financial stability of their household; I'm glad to have been another person there to help with homework and listen to their stories and serve as a role model and help keep things running. The people who say they support "family values" but who would have broken apart that family? I cannot, at such short notice, find words for the damage I see being done -- or attempted -- in the name of "family values".

      *sigh*.

      And yes, I know that you're acknowledging much of the above, and that a great deal of my rant (perhaps all of it) doesn't apply to you. Please forgive that. I don't believe your assertion that anyone (for a statistically significant value of same) views state programs as an adequate replacement for having a genuine support structure... but would suggest that, perhaps, there are those who would like those who don't have a support structure to have somewhere to turn.

      I've known too many people whose blood families weren't a healthy place for them -- physical abuse and the like. Several of those people were welcomed into a family of choice that gave them the support that they needed -- but not everyone can be that lucky, and establishing social policy in a way that only helps those who are already fortunate... well, there's a lot of that done already, and a lot of people it leaves behind.

  3. Wouldn't time be better spent... by bazmail · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?

    1. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by tomhath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Their first concern is to not get shot in the head. Teaching kids that they need to obey lawful orders and recognize unlawful ones is the right approach. If your rights are violated you deal with it later, not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.

    2. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Even if you do there will always be that one asshole that doesn't have an interest in not alienating people.
      Its better to have a population that can deal with that asshole too.

    3. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by jafiwam · · Score: 0

      ... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?

      I agree they are teaching the wrong people.

      Though, this effort would be best spent on the parents of the kids that get in trouble, along with the kids who DONT SHOW UP FOR SCHOOL.

      What these classes do is make it clear to the non-criminals how collossally stupid the average thuglet really is. The people that need to know how not to get beat, don't pay attention to anything anybody tells them... or they would already know how not to get beat.

    4. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we made unlawful orders punishable by death, we'd darwin out all people who abuse other's rights.

    5. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This, down with unlawful restraint and assault culture

    6. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      If we made unlawful orders punishable by death, we'd darwin out all people who abuse other's rights.

      By that logic, we should make all crimes punishable by death too.

    7. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

      ... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?

      Or teaching criminals to stop shooting at cops?

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    8. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Effective policing depends on the consent of the police. Once respect for, and willingness to cooperate with, the police goes away then they're going to have an increasingly hard time. The easiest way to alienate the police (and therefore make their jobs harder) is to pass a load of laws that guarantee that everyone is guilty of something. Why would anyone sane cooperate with the police when pretty much anything that they say will incriminate them, using laws that they didn't even know existed?

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by spacepimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have? Subservience only reinforces their grandstanding and power playing. Ignorance of the law on the side of the police is not an excuse, just as ignorance of law among a civilian is no excuse.

    10. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by hey! · · Score: 2

      ... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?

      No, for two reasons.

      First stop and frisk is based on the "broken windows" theory, which in general is sound: people take behavioral cues from what they perceive as social norms. If they look around and see people breaking windows and jumping turnstyles they'll figure everyuone does it. But stop and frisk plus being "proactive" is a case of two ideas getting together and having a bastard child. Instead of signalling what the social norms are by keeping the streets orderly, the cops are singling out individuals upon whom they will impose those norms. It's a crude exercise in behavior control, and inherenly alienating.

      The second reason is Campbell's Law, roughly stated: the more you rely on a single measure to control social processes, the more that measure and the processes it controls will be corrupted. In 1995 the NYPD adopted CompStat -- a process improvement strategy based on measuring performance and holding police units like precincts accountable for their numbers. It's not a bad idea, depending on the measures chosen and if you have a critical attitude toward those measures, but the number of stops made is an inherently terrible metric. It's not a measure of success, it's a measure of activity, and is an easy number to control; if your numbers look bad you can always head out and start stopping peoiple.

      There's a lot of debate over whether NYPD cops have "quotas", but it's quibbling. There doesn't have to be a quota if everyone knows bad things happen to the precinct when the numbers are low and good things happen when the numbers are high.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Jaime2 · · Score: 0

      Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.

      That's a bit paranoid. Cop isn't even in the top 10 jobs for on the job fatalities. Also, most cop fatalities are from car accidents - yet they refuse to wear seat belts. old citation to show this has been known for a long time newer citation to show that nothing has changed. If they wore seat belts at the rate the general public did, being a police officer would be a pretty safe job. Police don't need to violate the fourth amendment to be safe.

    12. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just when they're committed by people with guns in positions of power.

    13. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by SourceFrog · · Score: 1

      I understand the police want to keep safe but they also have a duty to uphold the constitution, and the way stop and frisk is implemented is a due process violation (and racist). Maybe there would be less hostility toward the police if the police thus weren't singling out and violating due process rights of brown people.

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    14. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think OP was talking about the KID'S first concern, not the cop's....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    15. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea! And next, we can teach men not to rape! And criminals not to commit crimes!

      This is the best idea anyone has ever had!

    16. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You gain not being shot or tazed, hopefully.

    17. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol still laughin at this post. you are a retard.

    18. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you gain by consenting

      My time is more valuable than arguing with a goon who at that point has decided he is correct and you are a fuckup.

      Ignorance of the law on the side of the police
      Bring the law with you and read it to them. Then watch how they find something else to bust you on. The law is VERY expansive and covers a multitude of many things. I had a few friends who tried this trick. The cops remembered them and *waited* to find something else on them.

      Your best bet when dealing with them is keep quiet, admit nothing (they have to come up with something, ie how fast were you going), be nice, ask them if they are having a good day. They are dealing with angry pissed off people all day. It rubs off.

      You may be smarter than him. But he has a nightstick and a gun. One resisting arrest later and you have a few weeks of straightening it out. He might only have to show up to court if he cares. He got what he wanted. You 'respect' the law. And by respect I mean you at least acknowledge their power. You got a lawyer fee and weeks of hassling with court dates.

      But you showed him whos boss! That you did... /sarc

    19. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If your first concern is to not get shot in the head then there is no need to recognise the difference between lawful orders and unlawful ones. You just do what the man with the gun says.

      Of course, in some recent cases the cops don't even bother giving orders, so you could be fucked anyway.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    20. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      No, just when they're committed by people with guns in positions of power.

      That would exclude people without guns in a position of power. I know where you are coming from, but you better polish the logic you use to structure your arguments if you really want to make clear, precise points.

    21. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Effective policing depends on the consent of the police.

      That's hilarious, or possibly frightening, but I think you meant "depends on the consent of the people".

      In long form:

      The Nine Principles of Policing

      1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
      2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
      3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
      4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
      5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
         
      6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
      7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
      8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
      9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles

      Enough to make an American cop's head explode.

      (Idiot slashcode doesn't know how to do an ordered list. Crap).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    22. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I.E. Among others they're viotatin Peel's principle #9:

      To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    23. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      You don't think that those would be good things to teach?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    24. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by dywolf · · Score: 2

      and that fear is how rights are eroded as expectations change

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    25. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

      Not get killed? Live for another day where you can fight for legal remedy, and hopefully create a legal precedent that will prevent such violations in the future?

      Subservience only reinforces their grandstanding and power playing.

      This is all bravado from your part. Until you have actually dealt with situations like that, face to face, you ought to temper it and think a little.

      There are moments in life when it is appropriate to disobey a law and deal with the consequences (see Rosa Park or Gandhi, or recently Arnold Abbott).

      This is specially true if violations of your rights (or your "violation" of an unjust law) is done in public, to bring awareness to a just cause. This is particularly true when violations are the manifestation of egregious institutions (colonialism, institutionalized racism, to less diabolical but still egregious ones such as laws preventing feeding of homeless.

      Here, you, the generic "you", are full aware of it, and you have a made a decision to take the hit for a greater cause. On the other hand, there are times to play possum, in particular if violation of your rights just happen because you are there on the wrong time, being incidental of you just being you, without you planning to take the hit for a greater cause.

      You coming from an event and getting arrested because "you" look the profile, or getting handcuffed while picking up your kids because you look suspicious, even when teachers are vouching for you. Etc, etc.

      In such cases when you are just living your daily life, play possum, litigate later. This is specially true when you have family that depends on you.

      Telling other people to go martyr just because it sounds good and right, that's just unhelpful bravado. This has nothing to do with doing the right thing, but everything to do with making a post where you sound brave and rightful.

      Ignorance of the law on the side of the police is not an excuse, just as ignorance of law among a civilian is no excuse.

      None of that justifies telling other people to escalate things when in a position of vulnerability. This is not a comic book, and you are not GI Joe.

      Learn to pick your battles, and you pick them, learn how to fight and win them.

    26. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much you can do about that if the cops are prepared to back up their threats with force, as they obviously are.

    27. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will someone upmod this please?

    28. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you consent to an unlawful search you will not have a legal recourse. Stop and frisk is *always* a violation of the intent of the 4th amendment, and it's been going on for years. More schools should be teaching this. The general advice of "be courteous and the cops won't bother you" only works if you are overprivileged and not living in one of the communities being targeted. I'm white, upper middle class and hold graduate degrees, and I still get treated poorly even when I'm the one that calls the cops. The message that police are a fearful dangerous group that is to be avoided is absolutely the right one to convey to children.

    29. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misunderstand. You *don't* consent. But if it happens *without* your consent, you can get resolution *later* when you won't be risking getting tazed, beaten or shot.

    30. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      "If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

      That wasn't in the post you're replying to. If the cops order you to do something, such as turn over your ID or give them your bag, you politely say "I do not consent to this, but I will not resist" and do as ordered. File your complaints and lawsuits later. You can't negotiate with the guy with the gun.

    31. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by pla · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

      "Comply" does not equal "consent".

      Make it absolutely clear that you do not consent to illegal searches or other orders, but remain entirely passive throughout the encounter. If Officer Friendly finds something in an illegal search, it makes it that much easier for your lawyer to get it thrown out. If Officer Friendly breaks your arm throwing you against a car to violently frisk you, it makes it that much easier for your lawyer to end his career and win you a nice chunk of change.

      And if Officer Friendly caps yo axe, the grand jury doesn't need to deliberate for six months to decide to charge him with murder (or, if you have the opportunity, to decide not to charge you with the same for acting in self defense).

    32. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Sand_Man · · Score: 1

      Nor by having a fire hose turned on you nor have police dogs set on you as you cross a bridge....

    33. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you get by dealing with the rights violation later is you get the opportunity to hit them where it hurts - in their wallets (or budgets), and in a way that's [hopefully] harder for them to weasel out of.

    34. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a fable by German playwright Bertolt Brecht, here roughly recounted by Howard Zinn:

      "A man living alone answers a knock at the door. When he opens it, he sees in the doorway the powerful body, the cruel face, of The Tyrant. The Tyrant asks, "Will you submit?" The man does not reply. He steps aside. The Tyrant enters and establishes himself in the man's house. The man serves him for years. Then The Tyrant becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man wraps the body, opens the door, gets rids of the body, comes back to his house, closes the door behind him, and says, firmly, "No."

    35. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, how about we fix this by having all of our police officers treat kids the same way that teachers have to treat kids? Let them do whatever they want and try to ignore them. When they get violent call someone else and let them handle the situation.

      I suppose the police are already that "someone else" so call the military instead?

    36. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.

      Oddly enough, gun control solves that too:
      --Number of police in the UK shot and killed in the line of duty since 1995: 7
      --Number of police in the US shot and killed in the line of duty in 2012* alone: 120-130**

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

      *most recent year for which there is any sort of numbers I could find
      **we don't keep good track of exact figures of any set of gun deaths in the US

      The statistics for gun homicide rates, including citizens shot by police, are similarly lopsided, even after accounting for population size.
      And for the US, nebulous, because again, we dont keep track.

      When police in the UK fatally shoot two people in a YEAR, out of 5 shootings total, in the entire country, it's a big deal.
      In the US we're lucky if less than two per state on any given night of the week, much less the whole country.

      But gun control "doesn't work" ... somehow ...

      not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.

      I don't think it's too much to ask that police officers be expected to be in charge of their faculties, and disciplined in the use of their weapons, rather than fearful and nervous and firing at the first possible moment.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    37. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      Not just brown people. Many of their actions violate the constitution and affect people of all races.

    38. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Good idea! And next, we can teach men not to rape! And criminals not to commit crimes!

      This is the best idea anyone has ever had!

      A tiny percentage of men rape or otherwise sexual assault another person of either gender. The feminists would have you believe their is a "rape culture" prevalent in civilised society.

    39. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To lose a battle does not mean you lose the war. To win a battle does not mean you win the war. And if you're at the point that you believe rights have eroded to the point that every traffic stop that involves illegal requests is indicative of a pattern without any sort of legal mechanism for repercussions to rectify the misdeeds--as much as any legal mechanism can reasonably rectify a misdeed--, then you really should be fighting against your police like it were a war and not like it were a mere battle.

    40. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If Officer Friendly breaks your arm throwing you against a car to violently frisk you, it makes it that much easier for your lawyer to end his career

      This is completely at odds with everything I've heard about US legal system, where the victims need to prove they didn't provoke the attacker ("stand your ground"), especially if the attacker is a cop, so citation needed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    41. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      If they are so concerned about not being shot that they are willing to violate people's rights, why become police in the first place?

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    42. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Its better to have a population that can deal with that asshole too.

      Maybe, but I'd far rather that asshole didn't have police powers.

    43. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Most of the murders by police occur in the cities, where gun control is tighter.

      Don't use this issue to plug your oft-discredited support of fascist gun control policies.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading the comments on any slashdot article which even tangentially involves women is pretty strong evidence that that culture does exist and is pretty widespread (among certain demographics, anyhow). There's certainly a good percentage of slashdotters who give a very good impression of hating, loathing and detesting virtually every woman in the entire world.

    45. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Copid · · Score: 1

      Most of everything that involves people happens in the cities.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    46. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.

      They're a lot less likely to get shot in the head if they aren't harassing people and assaulting people just because they can.

    47. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think they're suggesting you consent, quite the opposite most "how to deal with police" videos/articles that I have seen suggest you basically chant something to the effect of "I don't consent to this search" and then get badge numbers, car plates, names and file as many complaints as you can afterwards (local newspaper, police, legal, ACLU, etc). As others have noted resisting a panicky individual who has a gun on them is dangerous at best, and especially where police are concerned generally not a good idea as they have virtually no meaningful oversight. As imperfect as they are the best solution at present is the legal system and public forums (news, web, etc).

    48. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Escalation is the only thing that changes things. Maybe what this country needs is a white nerd to get murdered by a cop. Maybe then the right wingers will be like "Oh, shit, you mean the cop problem is real?"

      Then again, the "am I free to go" guy gets ridiculed by the social justice types. They want to pretend that civil libertarians are all bravado, but when those civil libertarians routinely cash the checks their mouths write, somehow they're still in the wrong.

    49. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

      There are so many things wrong with this, I can't even. Most obviously:

        Cops can (will) later lie and say they never did what they did. Lets say they illegally search you, going beyond what is allowed during a Terry Stop (which is to search for weapons to keep themselves safe). If you simply "deal with it later" in court, they'll simply lie and say "we never went too far". BAM- case dismissed. So, how does that help, exactly?
      On the other hand, if you speak up immediately, you draw other people's attention to it, both cops and non-cops. BAM- more witnesses if it ever goes to trial. AND, if there is a recording, by the cops or others, you're speaking up at the time is evidence that the violation happened- while your NOT speaking up could be framed as 'See, nothing happened, or he woulda said something!' by the cops/DA.

      Not to mention the whole 'delayed punishment/reward' being less effective.

    50. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but NY Daily News and The Daily Mail are neither credible nor reliable sources.

    51. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " If the cops order you to do something, such as turn over your ID or give them your bag, you politely say "I do not consent to this, but I will not resist" and do as ordered"

      But that is NOT "dealing with it later". That's standing up for yourself on the spot.

      "Dealing with it later" would be simply handing over your bag with no protest, then trying to sue later.

    52. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their first concern is to not get shot in the head. Teaching kids that they need to obey lawful orders and recognize unlawful ones is the right approach. If your rights are violated you deal with it later, not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.

      It wouldn't be their first concern if the police generally weren't abusive, corrupt and self-serving. The police, and their overly affluent masters, are the problem.

    53. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by pla · · Score: 1

      This is completely at odds with everything I've heard about US legal system, where the victims need to prove they didn't provoke the attacker ("stand your ground"), especially if the attacker is a cop, so citation needed.

      Not quite sure what you need a cite on - That police in the US don't have the right to beat the shit out of you for no reason?


      In theory, when cops give a lawful order, you need to obey it. When cops give an unlawful order, you can ignore it.

      In practice, ignoring any order from a cop, lawful or not, will result in you having a very bad day. Resisting at that point will make your day even worse, from "bad" to potentially "dead".

      If, however, you complied (note I didn't say "consented") fully, that drastically improves your chances in any subsequent legal proceedings, whether against you using illegally obtained evidence, or against the cop for abuse/assault/etc.

    54. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Individual survival is a more pressing concern than social change when you've got a gun pointed at you.

    55. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it's too much to ask that police officers be expected to be in charge of their faculties, and disciplined in the use of their weapons, rather than fearful and nervous and firing at the first possible moment.

      It shouldn't be too much to ask for but it appears to be too much to expect.

    56. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solve the problem of getting shot in the head by shooting first.

      And selecting people who are honest, since it's the hardened criminals that go for the "shoot the cop in the head" option as a starter.

    57. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you think that, if you calmly utter the words, "I do not consent to a search. Am I free to go?" the cop is gonna pull that trigger? Hrmmmm...

    58. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      To answer your question. You avoid a crap load of issues with the law by not getting into an argument with a cop. As a civilian it's not enough to know your rights. You also need to read the person you are dealing with. If the officer in question doesn't appear to be reasonable you need to bend within reason until you can fight back on neutral ground. The minute the officer goes on the offensive and arrests you, you are in trouble and your credibility drops significantly in court (I speak from experience).

      This is why body CAMS on cops are so critical. I don't believe there is a better way to deter corruption and abuse of power.

    59. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Ravaldy · · Score: 1

      This country and many others need CAMS on people of power. They have too much power to not be monitored during their shift.

    60. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There need to be much, much harsher penalties for injuring someone after violating their rights. Cops need to be made to think twice before tazing people.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    61. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where the victims need to prove they didn't provoke the attacker ("stand your ground")

      That's not what "stand your ground" means at all. If that's what you've heard about the US system, you need to stop listening to whoever you heard it from.

    62. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Most of the murders by police occur in the cities, where gun control is tighter.

      Because of cheap guns purchased at places like gun shows with little to no regulations.

      Don't use this issue to plug your oft-discredited support of fascist gun control policies.

      Fascists DGAF about ammosexuals. The Deep State wants to record everything you do, not take away your toys.

    63. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

      What you gain is the opportunity (because you didn't get shot in the head) to use the system to punish those who've abused their power. If you think that belligerence is the only proper response to such abuses, you've already lost.

    64. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but getting shot and killed by police really sucks.

    65. Re: Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the NYPD. They'll certainly shoot you; but they may need to reload or call for backup in order to actually land a headshot.

    66. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      Falsely arresting someone carries risk. They'll usually not want to do that. Especially with dashcam videos, etc., they could actually get in trouble.

      Which isn't to say you shouldn't be polite. It's worth being polite. But consenting to unlawful searches ... no. You say you don't consent; if they order you to empty your pockets:

      "I don't consent to any searches."
      "Take everything out of your pockets."
      "If you're going to search me anyway, then do it yourself, please. I don't want there to be any confusion later that I did not consent to a search."

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    67. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want gun control, you can work on getting a constitutional amendment through. Until this happens, the types of gun control you are talking about are flat out illegal in the US.

    68. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Escalation is the only thing that changes things. Maybe what this country needs is a white nerd to get murdered by a cop. Maybe then the right wingers will be like "Oh, shit, you mean the cop problem is real?"

      No, in that case, the "right wingers" will accept whatever slander of white nerd is offered by the police. He may have been carrying unidentified electronic apparatus or possibly a bomb. He may have threatened LEOs. He probably made deranged comments related to the Constitution, natural rights, and the imminent downfall of society. In sort, white nerd was clearly unbalanced, and while it's unfortunate that the police are sometimes driven to fire on the mentally ill, they really are not trained mental health personnel.

    69. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Stating calmly that you do not consent to the search as it is a violation of your rights is "bravado and grandstanding"? Why would it have to be? Oh wait your entire life advice column is hinged on that contrived notion. Do you feel that it is impossible to calmly assert your rights?

      In fact your entire line up of logic is bullshit, because if you acquiesce and submit to the search then it isn't illegal, so you have no recourse. For them to break the law it involves you must assert your rights. I get what you are saying. Don't be belligerent, don't incite worse scenarios, don't escalate.

      That is all advice that has exactly zero to do with stating that you are well within your rights not to speak, not to consent to a search. But you wouldn't have an argument unless you took what I said and inflated it to be chest beating.

    70. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      This is completely at odds with everything I've heard about US legal system, where the victims need to prove they didn't provoke the attacker ("stand your ground"), especially if the attacker is a cop, so citation needed.

      Not quite sure what you need a cite on - That police in the US don't have the right to beat the shit out of you for no reason?

      Yes, that's the part. Can you offer any statistics on what fraction of officers that beat or kill an unresisting subject are actually dismissed from their jobs and unable to find another posting? Because around here, they seem to hand out administrative leave with pay pretty liberally, slaps on the wrist pretty reluctantly, and terminations quite rarely. The SWAT team that dropped a grenade in a baby's crib are not even being reprimanded.

    71. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did I say anything about getting tough or macho? All I said, and decidedly so was that consenting to a power they don't have is not good for anyone. Show me exactly where I said play the macho card and argue? Don't consent, and then they are breaking the law. When you do consent the coercion becomes a valid tactic.

    72. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their first concern is to not get shot in the head.

      That's a bit paranoid.

      It isn't paranoia when it happens literally every single day.

      3 days ago - Cop kills unarmed man - shot once in the chest
      http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/...

      A quick Google search shows multiple hundreds of "accidental shootings" in situations where most can't physically be accidental and NO situation of risk was presented what so ever to the officer in question.
      This isn't paranoia but cold hard dead fact.

      Perhaps you can say it is incorrect to state a cop will likely shoot you in the head, since it seems they prefer to aim at the back while terrorized innocents run in a panic for their lives (and proven rightly so!)

      But paranoia it is not, anymore than we are paranoid the sun will rise tomorrow morning.

      Perhaps if cops were treated as equally innocent as the people they are murdering, the occupation would justly and rightly be the most dangerous in the world. But that isn't the case - no cop was ever prosecuted for murder after cold bloodily killing someone.

      No one gives two shits about how dangerous of an occupation terrorism is, yet the terrorists have only murdered about a thousand people on US soil - the same number of people murdered by police in just three years - every year

    73. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If a white nerd gets murdered by a cop, nothing much will change. They will find some reason why he appeared to be a dangerous white nerd. The right wingers who aren't already unhappy about police abusing others will assume he had it coming.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    74. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by qeveren · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure one can say "gun control is tighter in the cities" when the cities are basically located in a sea of guns.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
    75. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Educating the kids on how not to get hurt is about all they can do. The NYPD is so out of control and they still want to pretend they are doing the right thing. StopandFrisk needs to end, period. Broken Windows policing needs to end. There is no choice, but for young people of color in some areas to fear the police because the police don't give a fuck about their rights or even their physical safety. If a black man in New York wants to survive he can only be polite, immediately comply with all instructions no matter how stupid and either keep his hands on the wheel or on his head for the duration of the interaction. White people do actually give a shit, it will just take some time for the cops to listen.

    76. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMG, dumbass. You can't exercise your rights if you've been killed. You're just an internet tough guy.

    77. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Where exactly did I say anything about getting tough or macho?

      Where exactly did I say anything about you allegedly saying something about "getting tough or macho"?

      Let's roll the tape, Johnny:

      "If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

      That wasn't in the post you're replying to. If the cops order you to do something, such as turn over your ID or give them your bag, you politely say "I do not consent to this, but I will not resist" and do as ordered.

      With all due respect, you have a severe reading disorder. First, you think the GP poster was saying you "consent". When I corrected you on that, you then think I was saying you were talking about being "macho". In actuality, no one was ever talking about consenting, being macho, or doing anything else stupid.

    78. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      If you think saying "I do not consent to this search" is belligerent then you've already lost. How exactly do you have a single drop of recourse to the policeman if you consent to the search he has no right to perform? Once you do it is legal. He is using threats of violence to influence you into dropping your rights. Why is it this entire page is filled with people who think that calmly asserting your rights is belligerent and deserved of police brutality?

    79. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about arguing? Saying calmly to the policeman that I do not consent to the search is now arguing? If you bend and consent to the search then there is no recourse to the cop. He broke no laws if you consent. So what neutral ground is there to fight on? He got via threat of violence what he legally couldn't, and is in the right. That only reinforces this sort of aggressive behavior on the cop side.

    80. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      I am saying that you should make it clear you don't consent. If you give the cop whatever he asks for out of fear of violence (IE consenting to an illegal search) then we have already lost. I didn't suggest being non compliant, I said never consent to an illegal search, and only give ID if the policeman has a legally entitled reason for the request. Otherwise the only thing that happens is the behavior gets reinforced.

    81. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Kingofearth · · Score: 1

      How do you "teach" someone to not be a criminal? I can guarantee you that all men already know how to not rape. The grandparent post's point is that you can't stop everyone from doing bad things, so you should teach people how to avoid and handle those people doing bad things. Unless you think all it will take to end criminality once and for all in the human race is just a little more schooling telling kids "don't do bad things".

    82. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

      And this is precisely why the police in the US are little more than armed, bullying thugs who suppress minorities and extort money (see: civil forfeiture).

    83. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you haven't read about the French Revolution, you should do so. You have not the slightest idea how bad things can be, for generations, before things get better. Your story ends with the man dying in prison and his son being starved into thievery and thence to a similar gaol or scaffold. See also Germany, Cambodia, Russia. Your playwright is a moron and Zinn should know better -- he wrote quite a bit about the genocide of the American Indians, how is that tyranny working out for them? Have they shut the door yet? Will they ever?

      It is dangerous self-delusional bullshit to believe that the "will of the people" will always triumph, or that waiting is a good response to Tyranny. I'm not going to suggest outright violence is better but doing nothing is suicide, and passive resistance has failed a lot more often than not.

    84. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no choice, but for young people of color in some areas to fear the police because the police don't give a fuck about their rights or even their physical safety.

      When I lived in NYC I was terrified of the cops, and I'm lily white.

    85. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      The right wingers who aren't already unhappy about police abusing others will assume he had it coming.

      True enough. The numbers of right wingers unhappy with the police abusing folk increases daily. I've seen it with my own eyes for years. Places where many years ago, you'd see knee-jerk support of police are becoming much more the opposite these days. I've talked with several cops about it, and they are completely clueless how they are percieved these days, even by folks they would normally consider their natual allies.

      Many liberals also haven't noticed this shift. I've found it interesting to observe over the last decade.

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    86. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Not quite sure what you need a cite on - That police in the US don't have the right to beat the shit out of you for no reason?

      Yes. Does Officer Friendly actually get in trouble for breaking your arm? Or does he simply claim that you assaulted him, and possibly plant some drugs in your car to "find", and walk free? Because it sure seems like it's the latter.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    87. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Escalation is the only thing that changes things.

      Rosa Park wants to have a talk with you.

    88. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      Stating calmly that you do not consent to the search as it is a violation of your rights is "bravado and grandstanding"?

      Short answer: no. Long answer: that is not the type of behavior I'm referring to. Feel free to conflate the two if that gives you the last word. The entire topic of discussion is about a school teaching teenagers how to deal with police encounters. This is not about adults discussing common sense behavior. Nice red herring btw.

      Why would it have to be?

      It doesn't. But that is not the type of behavior under discussion.

      Oh wait your entire life advice column is hinged on that contrived notion.

      No. It is an answer to this question in bold below:

      "If your rights are violated you deal with it later"

      What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

      If you want to conflate topics, go for it, but don't get all uptight when people call you for being obtuse on purpose.

    89. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't time be better spent moving out of the Liberal Anti-Rights, (Democrat KKK Party) states and cities?
      There are at least 20 states where the police know that you have Rights, and treat you accordingly!

    90. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      lol, what the hell do you think refusing to change seats is?

    91. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also to be feared are people with guns who are not in positions of power, because holding a gun automatically puts you in a position of power. But, yes. I suppose "under color of authority" is a little more precise, but your point is made.

    92. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just when they're committed by people with guns in positions of power.

      That would exclude people without guns in a position of power. I know where you are coming from, but you better polish the logic you use to structure your arguments if you really want to make clear, precise points.

      We all have to sleep. In a civil society, it's awfully convenient not to worry about people who feel wronged, taking justice into their own hands. I'd certainly rather face a jury than have a "get out of jail, free" card and then tempted to abuse it to the point of retaliation, but then again, I'm not a thug or Mafia.

    93. Re:Wouldn't time be better spent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you ready to die on the street for these rights? The ultimate violation of your civil rights is to kill you...something the cops can do. You can't fight them from the morgue...live to fight another day!

  4. ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,"

    That seems eminently sensible given what appears in the news about the police.

    1. Re:ORLY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The police in the US are showing great similarities with the mafia:

      http://www.ivpressonline.com/quicknews/calexico-police-officers-suspended-amid-fbi-local-investigation-into-department/article_185e41c2-6058-11e4-9f9c-0017a43b2370.html

    2. Re:ORLY? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The police in the US are showing great similarities with the mafia:

      http://www.ivpressonline.com/quicknews/calexico-police-officers-suspended-amid-fbi-local-investigation-into-department/article_185e41c2-6058-11e4-9f9c-0017a43b2370.html

      Back in the 1970s when there were many more street gangs in NYC, the police were just considered the biggest and best armed gang. They still are, there just aren't many other street gangs left in NYC. I guess they won and are now trying to make sure they're the only street gang out there.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  5. Gestapo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does NYPD hate young ethnic people so much?

    1. Re:Gestapo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is ethnic, so do they hate every young person?

    2. Re:Gestapo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like cops hate anyone who is not a cop.

    3. Re:Gestapo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think "ethnic" means what you think it means.

    4. Re: Gestapo by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      Let's not dick around on the nonsensical euphemism treadmill.

      We are talking about skin color. Not "ethnic" or "colored" or "negro" or "people of color" or "African American". The appropriate term, IMO, being inoffensive and also accurate to the topic, would be "black".

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    5. Re:Gestapo by JosKarith · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes they do. And old people, and middle-aged people and...
      Well it's not so much hate as disrespect and a lot of cops seem to feel that a gun and a badge gives them a god-given right to push people around.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    6. Re:Gestapo by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Why does NYPD hate young ethnic people so much?

      On the job training. If the human brain does one thing well it is pattern recognition. Unfortunately 45% of blacks live at or below poverty and it isn't middle or upper middle class people commiting most of the crime. When 80% or more of the crimes you are dealing are commited by people of a certain skin color, dressed a certain way, speaking in a similar way... you learn to associate this category of person as a danger and even eventually with all the crap you deal with day in and day out as degenerate or less of a person than you.

      I would imagine that even the best of people would tend to come out of a tough police precinct as 'racist' to one degree or another regardless of their intentions or the type of person they were when entering. It would be something you would have to constantly guard against. It is a depressing problem to consider. I'm not sure how you would even combat this. Mandatory participation in things like the big brother program for the neighborhoods you police? Other community involvement while off duty?

  6. And so? by PvtVoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.

    Which is apparently necessary.

    1. Re:And so? by zildgulf · · Score: 2

      What part of teaching how to allow the kid stopped by the police from losing all of his rights and survive the police encounter without trauma "criminal-defense" advice?

      Are these law-enforcement experts OK with nervous kids getting shot or killed by another nervous guy with a gun and badge? Where's the common sense here?

  7. Good luck with that by sjbe · · Score: 0

    ... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?

    If you can figure out how to accomplish that there is a Nobel Peace Prize in it for you.

    1. Re:Good luck with that by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      We could send them through something called "training" before we let them loose on the streets. Where can I collect my Nobel Prize?

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Get rid of qualified immunity, replace it with an affirmative defense and make prosecution of any crime committed by police mandatory. Police alienate the public because they are no consequences for doing so.

    3. Re: Good luck with that by frikken+lazerz · · Score: 1

      All you need to do to win a Nobel Peace Prize is two things: 1) have dark skin 2) start various wars against defenseless nations

    4. Re: Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah you mean like Mikhail Gorbachev (1990), John Hume and David Trimble (1998), Médecins Sans Frontières, (1999), Jimmy Carter (2002), IPCC and Al GOre (2007)?? Yeah they all are "colored" and started wars. Your bigotry is showing

    5. Re: Good luck with that by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

      Nope.

      Obama got his peace prize for not being George Bush.

      However it does seem that he got it under false pretences, as he seems to be George's harder working brother.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re: Good luck with that by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes, forgot about the peace prize I got in 2012.

      I'm rather pale.

      Not too sure about the war bit, currently I seem to be in a proxy war with Russia, do they count as defenseless?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re: Good luck with that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair at that point most of those guys had actually DONE something. Not promised 'change' (well one did but he at least did something).

    8. Re: Good luck with that by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Nope.

      Obama got his peace prize for not being George Bush.

      However it does seem that he got it under false pretences, as he seems to be George's harder working brother.

      He talks smoother, the skin's darker. But the ears are a giveaway!

    9. Re: Good luck with that by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      All you need to do to win a Nobel Peace Prize is two things: 1) have dark skin 2) Continue various wars against defenseless nations

      There. FTFY.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    10. Re:Good luck with that by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Start by disarming the pigs.

    11. Re: Good luck with that by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      New wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia. So far. Oh, and Iraq 3.

  8. It's perpetrated by the brothers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to keep the man down.

  9. It's more of a statement about NYC by MikeRT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The ugly truth about NYC is that it would be ungovernable without a very large and powerful police force because it's an extremely diverse and class stratified city. Studies have repeatedly shown that trust people between strangers deteriorates as a function of the increased diversity of a population. Does this mean minorities and such are "bad?" Of course not. What it means is that a city which is basically a miniature United Nations is going to be likely held together by an iron fist in a velvet glove, not shared customs and values which often lead to conflict resolution without getting the state involved.

    1. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by knightghost · · Score: 1

      Wealth seems to be a larger social stratus than culture. Not to mention that dense populations lose peer pressure because people simply don't know each other.

    2. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      I grew up in NYC and was there during the blackout... I overall have to disagree with your sentiment. If there is distrust among strangers is simply due to sheer number rather than diversity. If you're constantly surrounded by 20-30 people you will find a quality in at least one of them untrustworthy.

    3. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by SourceFrog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your argument is exactly what they used to say about why apartheid was needed, and also why they justified dictatorial policing - and it was very effective, as like New York, apartheid South Africa had very low crime rates and bragged about how "safe" it was while violating everyone's rights. I think it was Martin Luther King who said some powerful words about not confusing the presence of *order* with the presence of *justice*.

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    4. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. I lived in homogenous cities before. Diverse cities and neighborhoods are definitely worse and people watch their back a lot more.

    5. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by monkeypushbutton · · Score: 2

      The ugly truth about NYC is that it would be ungovernable without a very large and powerful police force because it's an extremely diverse and class stratified city.

      It seems that the above would also apply to London, yet we manage to get along with a (largely) unarmed police force, so I'm not buying it.

    6. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ugly truth about NYC is that it would be ungovernable without a very large and powerful police force because it's an extremely diverse and class stratified city.

      So you're saying that you have to treat the niggers & spics like shit?

    7. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then again, population in London is roughly half that of NYC.

    8. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, left out a word there: population DENSITY, not overall population.

    9. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by dave420 · · Score: 2

      If you decreased the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest you'd see a lot less crime. The races or cultures present matters not one iota - it's all about money. Humans are practically identical, regardless of their race. The only diversity which is dangerous is that of wealth. Societies with good protection of the poor (including free healthcare) and good social mobility have fewer crimes and less recidivism, regardless of the cultural make-up of said society. Just pointing to minorities and saying "see - different-looking people. That's the cause" ensures it will continue unabated forever. Look into the actual causes, not the symptoms.

    10. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by dave420 · · Score: 1

      The average density, sure, but there are areas of London which are incredibly densely populated. Parts of it are still organised based on the much-earlier medieval layout.

    11. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Is London as diverse as NYC?

    12. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I've lived in a variety of multicultural environments in the UK in the past, and not seen anything other than normal levels of policing - which by suburban US standards (never mind urban standards) are extremely relaxed.

      I'm not sure what studies you're referring to, but I would revisit them if I were you with a very skeptical eye. I'd be more inclined to think the US has a particular problem due to history and the level of corruption in local governments, which has lead to particularly bad policing, which has in turn lead to an assumption that that's just the way things should be from a populace brought up in that environment.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    13. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies have repeatedly shown that trust people between strangers deteriorates as a function of the increased diversity of a population.

      [Citation needed]. Prejudice is no substitute for rational thought.

    14. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      The ugly truth about NYC is that it would be ungovernable without a very large and powerful police force because it's an extremely diverse and class stratified city. Studies have repeatedly shown that trust people between strangers deteriorates as a function of the increased diversity of a population. Does this mean minorities and such are "bad?" Of course not. What it means is that a city which is basically a miniature United Nations is going to be likely held together by an iron fist in a velvet glove, not shared customs and values which often lead to conflict resolution without getting the state involved.

      No because a most diverse environment with one person per ethnicity would result in a balance of (dis)trust.

      It's when groups of people get together and want the same limited resources that conflict results.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    15. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ugly truth about NYC is that it would be ungovernable without a very large and powerful police force because it's an extremely diverse and class stratified city. Studies have repeatedly shown that trust people between strangers deteriorates as a function of the increased diversity of a population. Does this mean minorities and such are "bad?" Of course not. What it means is that a city which is basically a miniature United Nations is going to be likely held together by an iron fist in a velvet glove, not shared customs and values which often lead to conflict resolution without getting the state involved.

      you have got to be kidding, right? Otherwise what it seems you are saying is might makes right, which is the classic defense of a powerful, undemocratic elite.

    16. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      How many languages are spoken in NYC? The last census said 107 here in london.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    17. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      MLK also said to judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

      There are a hell of a lot of New Yorkers of shockingly low character. Bringing a foreign country's culture into the argument doesn't change anything and is just a lazy attempt at guilt by association. Guilt by association is a logical fallacy and educated people should know better.

      This form of the argument is as follows:

      • Source S makes claim C.
      • Group G, which is currently viewed negatively by the recipient, also makes claim C.
      • Therefore, source S is viewed by the recipient of the claim as associated to the group G and inherits how negatively viewed it is.

      An example of this fallacy would be "My opponent for office just received an endorsement from the Puppy Haters Association. Is that the sort of person you would want to vote for?"

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    18. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Your argument is exactly what they used to say about why apartheid was needed, and also why they justified dictatorial policing - and it was very effective...

      ...at enforcing a whole lot of laws that actually defined apartheid. In other words, it wasn't the policing that made apartheid evil, it was the notion (codified into law) that people deserved different things because of the color of their skin. We don't have that.

    19. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, South Africa is now the rape capital of the world.

      Which is not to say that a system of racial oppression was to thank for keeping rape down, but rather to point out that strict policing can be associated with safer streets.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    20. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies you say.

    21. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MobyDisk: Easily. It is part of why you hear the rest of the UK complain that London operates so differently from the rest of the country.

      The Wikipedia article (with citation!) notes "In 2007 there were over 300 languages spoken in it and more than 50 non-indigenous communities with a population of more than 10,000." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

    22. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Totally disagree, as a resident of NYC for about 10 years now. What was it, 2 weeks back, I put my folks (senior citizens from Maine) on the subway to go home by themselves for the first time (early meeting for me at work that day) -- and reported being offered help up stairs multiple times, by both black and white people. Frankly, I'm more prone to trusting strangers here than back in Maine where I grew up.

      If anything I would say the converse: NYC policing is only able to be as corrupt as it is in such a large and diverse city. When the managers break the law and say, "you're required to write 20 tickets and one arrest every month", they can pick on the black neighborhoods to dish out abuse, because they know they're poor and powerless. The war on drugs is effectively indistinguishable from simple race-based sabotage.

      Have you ever lived in NYC, or are you just responding via TV show knowledge?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    23. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you decreased the wealth gap between the richest and the poorest you'd see a lot less crime. The races or cultures present matters not one iota - it's all about money. Humans are practically identical, regardless of their race. The only diversity which is dangerous is that of wealth. Societies with good protection of the poor (including free healthcare) and good social mobility have fewer crimes and less recidivism, regardless of the cultural make-up of said society. Just pointing to minorities and saying "see - different-looking people. That's the cause" ensures it will continue unabated forever. Look into the actual causes, not the symptoms.

      There is no wealth gap.

      There is a retarded, lazy, and shitty culture attributes gap.

      Those things create a wealth gap. There are lots of people out there, to whom, you could give $10k, and six months later they wouldn't have shit again asides from maybe some new tattoos. Until that changes, the wealth gap will remain.

      Your communist ideas of giving money to people will always fail, if they are implemented that is.

    24. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The census figures are all public domain, you know.

      NYC total population: 8.4 million.
      35% 'Non-Hispanic White', 27% Hispanic, 25% African-American, 12% Asian-American, 2% Mixed ('Multiracial')

      London total population: 8.2 million
      44% White-British, 15% White-Other, 18% Asian or Asian British, 13% Black or Black British, 5% Mixed, 4% 'Other'

      Looks comparable to me.

    25. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Translation: YOU don't trust non-white people and you want the police to intimidate them for you so they 'know their place'.

    26. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by msi · · Score: 1

      To be fair, South Africa is now the rape capital of the world.

      Which is not to say that a system of racial oppression was to thank for keeping rape down, but rather to point out that strict policing can be associated with safer streets.

      I am not sure that reports of rape on non whites would have been recorded during apartheid

    27. Re:It's more of a statement about NYC by msi · · Score: 1

      London is the only place in the world that is comparable to NYC

  10. Sad by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Just in one word. sad.

    --
    bickerdyke
  11. fight it out in court by deadweight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Advice I got from a cop: Most cops are great guys and a few are psychopaths with guns. The best place to fight it out is in court where they won't be able to shoot you and get away with it ;)

    1. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best place to fight it out is in court where they won't be able to shoot you and get away with it ;)

      I live in Pakistan you insensitive clod

    2. Re:fight it out in court by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Advice I got from a cop: Most cops are great guys and a few are psychopaths with guns. The best place to fight it out is in court where they won't be able to shoot you and get away with it ;)

      So, the suggestion is that we should allow the police to illegally stop and search us until we can be in a safer environment to tell them they're doing something illegal?

      No, sorry.

      I propose something else: all police wear cameras and audio recording 100% of the time, and a zero tolerance for police who do not adhere to the law, and dismissal/criminal charges are the outcome. Any police officer who turned off his recording stuff is presumed to be lying.

      How about we weed out the assholes and the ones who don't know what the law says instead of making the citizens all act like scared, compliant sheep?

      By the time they've dragged your ass into court, they've already fabricated their evidence and come up with the lies they'll all tell.

      It really is time to stop giving police the benefit of the doubt, because it's more than a "few" police officers who do this stuff.

      The reality is, an increasing number of police either don't know or don't care what the law says. They just do whatever they want because they have the guns and badges.

      It's time to fix that.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:fight it out in court by deadweight · · Score: 2

      The camera thing IS making headway in Baltimore. Also note the following: "Officer I am not consenting to a search at this time, as is my right" as opposed to "FUCK YOU PIG get outta my face you racist cracker shithead". Only one of these is going to impress a judge or jury later on ;)

    4. Re:fight it out in court by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      That's way more depressing than it is useful. Just cooperate to the extent you are required to by law, and no more, and the amount of hassle will be kept to a minimum. Even a psychopath won't shoot you for being too quiet.

    5. Re:fight it out in court by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, while I agree the tone can change things ... I'm still hopeful a court will uphold the fact that the 4th amendment exists, and that a stop/search with no probable cause it illegal. Because that's the actual problem here.

      Police officers getting paid leave and no actual consequences for ignoring the law has to stop.

      Instead, the blue wall circles around when a cop does something illegal, and until the video surfaces, they concoct their own version of events and stick with it until they get proven lying.

      That kind of shit need to lead to criminal charges.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the when your county has multiple judges that hand out tickets and guilty verdicts as if they are getting a cut off every ticket... You can argue in court then, but the argument is highly unlikely to make a difference, even with a great argument against the officer, they still can play this word games and law manipulation tricks into finding you still guilty.

    7. Re:fight it out in court by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      So some of his co-workers are psychotic murderers, but the rest of the cops are "great guys" who won't kill you themselves, but they will definitely help cover up your murder. I'm sorry, but if you know your co-worker is a murderer, you're not a "great guy" if you aren't trying to stop him.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    8. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Little hard to show up in court, when one is buried 6 ft under

    9. Re:fight it out in court by dcollins117 · · Score: 1

      I propose something else: all police wear cameras and audio recording 100% of the time, and a zero tolerance for police who do not adhere to the law, and dismissal/criminal charges are the outcome. Any police officer who turned off his recording stuff is presumed to be lying.

      Remove the ability to turn the cameras off. Same with the ability to erase what has been recorded. Anything less than that is just inviting abuse.

    10. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of a "malfunction" the cop should be assumed automatically guilty for any accusation and the civilian not guilty.

    11. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The first amendment still exists, if a cop tries to violate my civil rights, then whatever I say about his or her behavior, possible parentage or attempts to violate me is legal. Don't tell me how to talk in a country with Freedom of Speech.

      And if the Judge gives one rats ass about how I tell the cop who is attempting to violate my civil rights, then he or she needs to be fired!

    12. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WHICH, if you do, costs absurd amounts of money, which most people don't have.

      All in all, it's a shite situation, which politicians and legislators, gloss over because they know if they touch this subject, they'll be out of a job. Likely due to unions. In the meantime, we, the public, are caught in the charade. There is no real fixing this from the outside. If it's to be fixed, it has to come from within the police forces themselves.

    13. Re:fight it out in court by headhot · · Score: 1

      To bad the courts believe the cops' word with out any needed external evidence and get all benefit of doubt, and any claim by a citizen makes needs to be substantiated with evidence. Its kinda one sided.

    14. Re:fight it out in court by zildgulf · · Score: 2

      Cooperation is not the same as consent. Make it known you don't consent to anything but you will not resist anything. Most police officers do what to follow the law and will more likely follow the law when dealing with a mostly compliant civilian. If the Officer Psycho decided to break your bones and/or shoot you for that he was likely going to do that anyway.

      You can not talk yourself out of a ticket, a questionable search, an arrest or a beating, but comply and assert your rights while trying to dial down the situation on your end. You are only responsible for your actions and you are responsible to keep the encounter civil and safe as much as you can.

      Your job it to first survive the encounter in tact and second to preserve you rights. The only place to challenge crazy cops is in the court room.

    15. Re:fight it out in court by jandrese · · Score: 1

      There was a story a couple of weeks ago where a cop pulled this guy over basically for being black. The cop tells him to get his license and registration, so the guy reaches for the glove box. Cop freaks out and shoots the guy because he thinks the guy is going for a gun. Panic makes people stupid. Luckily for the guy, panic also makes you a lousy shot.

      Dashcam video of the incident.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    16. Re:fight it out in court by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Which is a strong argument for mandatory police cameras. Without the dashcam, it would have been the black guy's word against the cop's.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    17. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If 20-25 out of 20-25 cops are all bad, it is likely that most, if not all, cops are bad cops:

      http://thinkprogress.org/justi...

      (There are several videos on youtube of this incident.)

      20-25 cops participated in the torture murder of a father in San Diego (beaten and tasered to death, as he lay on the ground screaming "Ayudame, Ayudame por favor!" (Help me, Help me please!).

      100% of the cops present participated in the cover up of the police murder-- some stealing camera phones, etc. and ALL witnessing, yet NOT intervening in any way during the murder-- most, participating-- getting at least a couple kicks in against the helpless man, as he lay crying on the ground.

      With this large number of cops present, and ALL confirmed to be bad cops, it does not appear there are such things as good cops, or if there are, they are a vanishingly small minority which for practical purposes can be considered non-existent.

    18. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that time and time again the courts have said your first amendment rights apply when talking to police also. So unless you confess to a crime or something, the police cannot punish you for talking shit. I wouldn't give them the satisfaction of respectful replies if they're not respecting me in the first place.

    19. Re:fight it out in court by deadweight · · Score: 1

      Advice for the real world dude. Dealing with an aggressive armed psycho one-on-one is a losing bet. Don't give Bufort T. Justice and Dirty Harry an excuse to go off on you. Sir I do not consent to search works jsut as well legally as fuck off. YMMV

    20. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So some of his co-workers are psychotic murderers, but the rest of the cops are "great guys" who won't kill you themselves, but they will definitely help cover up your murder. I'm sorry, but if you know your co-worker is a murderer, you're not a "great guy" if you aren't trying to stop him.

      Nice straw man.

    21. Re:fight it out in court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can not talk yourself out of a ticket ...

      Difficult but not impossible, admit quilt, and negligence, while berating yourself for being so stupid. Do this while going on a call to fix equipment at a government office and the officer just might get a much more important call elsewhere. It happened to me.
       

    22. Re: fight it out in court by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing with the advice, I'm arguing with the notion that there are only a few bad cops. There are criminal cops and there are cops that tolerate criminal cops, which makes them no better.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    23. Re: fight it out in court by deadweight · · Score: 1

      True as far as that goes, but not all police departments are afflicted with criminal cops or tolerate them. I knew a Baltimore COUNTY 911 dispatcher that totally hated dealing with calls about Baltimore CITY cops that lived in the county beating their wives or getting in fights off duty. The county cops hated dealing with violent offenders that assumed they were arrest-proof. They were not and not happy to find that out.

    24. Re:fight it out in court by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Its so shockingly one sided it calls into doubt the legitimacy of the court system.

      FTFY

    25. Re:fight it out in court by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      So, the suggestion is that we should allow the police to illegally stop and search us until we can be in a safer environment to tell them they're doing something illegal?

      Because telling them in an unsafe environment will stop the cop? "Oh, I didn't know I was in violation of the 4th Amendment, you have a good day sir." More likely they'll just make the interaction worse for you since you were "backtalking", perhaps find some more things to fine/charge you with. While telling the cop he's wrong is noble and courageous and all, it will have no positive effect and may make fighting them in the court even harder.

      They just do whatever they want because they have the guns and badges.

      Exactly, and the only thing we have to stop them in the long run is a gun or a gavel. I don't know about you, but I know it wouldn't end well for me if I tried to use the gun method.

      I propose something else: all police wear cameras and audio recording 100% of the time, and a zero tolerance for police who do not adhere to the law, and dismissal/criminal charges are the outcome. Any police officer who turned off his recording stuff is presumed to be lying.

      I support the idea, but this also requires the gavel. Unless we can set up some uncorruptable, citizen-run group that monitors every police feed in real time and sends out a Cop Block if they see one doing stuff they shouldn't, the cameras can only help citizens after the fact.

    26. Re:fight it out in court by msi · · Score: 1

      I agree totally however when you are being held at gun point by a police officer without recording equipment and a system that believes the police over the public what should you do?

  12. Education versus racism by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Civics classes have been sorely missing from school curriculums and this is exactly the kind of civics information people need.

    I have NEVER seen a civics class where how do behave during a police stop was anywhere on the curriculum. I think it is incredibly depressing that something like this is even remotely necessary. And sadly it actually does seem to be necessary. These kids are basically being taught (for good reasons) how to behave safely in the face of institutional racism. Learning how to behave during a stop and frisk should never be necessary. Ever.

    Add in some basics on personal freedoms and rights, civic duties, local government, and taxation and you've got an educated populace.

    Knowing your rights and knowing how to (safely) go about asserting those rights in front of some racist thug with a gun and a badge are VERY different things.

    1. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop and frisk simply should not exist. And it's not just racism that is a problem; as far as I'm concerned, everyone needs to be wary of the police and the government in general.

    2. Re:Education versus racism by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      These kids are basically being taught (for good reasons) how to behave safely in the face of institutional racism.

      Rules of engagement for most situations you will encounter in your adult life:

      1) dont be confrontational
      2) if you're itching for a fight, you're doing it wrong
      3) be respectful
      4) always act as if you are on camera and its going on the news

    3. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only police read and followed this list...

    4. Re:Education versus racism by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on stop and frisk. That law is an abomination.

      I also agree that it's depressing that it's necessary to teach kids how to behave if they are detained by police. But probably for different reasons. I'm a few years older than the average person on /., so I know I'm dating myself. Respect is sorely missing in this day and age. I've had a number of run ins with law enforcement in my youth and a few traffic stops over the years since. I can assure you 95%+ of the time the person with the badge and gun will be reasonable if you are courteous. And if they're not, it's still not going to help you if you're rude or combative. Trying to be cool by acting like an ass isn't going to do anyone any good.

    5. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only police read and followed this list...

      Sadly, given the psych profile of the average police officer, that will never happen. And if we didn't hire those people, we would have very, very small police forces.

      So I see this educational effort as a good thing.

      The job of the police is difficult, but innopcent people, including cops, get hurt if they try to make their job easier.

    6. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I assumed it was part of all US civic classes. I know we spent a day or two covering your rights and what to do, and how to act when pulled over, or if police come to your house and request entry.

      A lot of it was covered are your 4th and 5th amendment rights, Miranda rights, what probable cause is, what to say, more importantly what not to say, and what the police are allowed to do and search with and without a warrant.

      And my school was primarily white.

      It's a shame that in this case they are only now adding this because of stop and frisk, but regardless of that, it's important that all Americans know their rights, and should be a part of their education, regardless of social status or race.

    7. Re:Education versus racism by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I agree with the first 3. The problem with #4 is, some people are MORE likely to act like idiots on camera.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    8. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That law" is not an abomination - it is the 4th Amendment. Just imagine how invaded your life would be without it.

    9. Re: Education versus racism by jonfrei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of us do. More than you would guess.

    10. Re:Education versus racism by RabidReindeer · · Score: 0

      I can assure you 95%+ of the time the person with the badge and gun will be reasonable if you are courteous.

      And white.

      But definitely, "standing up to the Man" isn't going to help. The primary difference skin color will make at that point is how many bones you have left intact afterwards.

    11. Re:Education versus racism by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      This is the problem - there is subset of individual policemen and entire departments that AREN'T courteous or reasonable. They start out hostile and alienating. The interaction also starts out at an a very unequal power level. When you are placed in this sort of situation, it is much harder (and much more important) to finesse it exactly right.

      It can be done, such individuals and departments often aren't the sharpest pencils and with a bit of training and fore thought, you can work around them but it's harder. And also recall that not every alleged perp is all that sharp / sober or even interested in defusing the situation.

      So play acting these types of confrontation can be extremely effective. Unfortunate, but effective.

      'These are not the perps you are looking for .... '

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the kid who got shot on Friday for walking up a flight of stairs and making a cop scared enough to shoot him in the chest. Before you defend the cop, it's already ruled...an accident.

    13. Re:Education versus racism by Brownstar · · Score: 1

      I know it was part of my civics class almost 20 years ago as well.

      I also agree, that it should be part of all civics classes. The reason for that class is to make sure that we have an educated populace that understands what our laws AND our rights as citizens are.

    14. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I have no interest, or affiliations with this book's author other than respecting his work.

      Dale Carson's "Arrest Proof Yourself" is a must read for anyone in the US. The book isn't about bashing the popo, but dealing with what we have.

      It boils down to a few tips including:

      1: Keep the stuff out of sight.
      2: Don't be "visible". Dress like a mouth, and you will be treated as one.
      3: Don't lie. If a cop smells any BS, out come the cuffs.
      4: Try to pretend to be a middle class, rational person just for the interaction with the officer.

      These days, -any- arrest can be career breaking, even if it is "just" PI, disturbing the peace, or a bench warrant. I have seen this firsthand in other places I've worked -- their HR department will ask candidates if they have ever been -arrested-. Not convicted. Arrested. The rationale is that if a police officer takes the time to pull out cuffs and fill out paperwork, the person is a criminal (as convictions can be bought off.) The entire banking industry is like this. When I was a consultant for a small startup a while back, having a NCIC search and local arrest searches was par for the course. If the applicant popped up, I was told to toss the into round file, regardless of qualifications.

    15. Re:Education versus racism by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I have NEVER seen a civics class where how do behave during a police stop was anywhere on the curriculum.

      That is because curriculums are always behind the times. In the past there was no need for this sort of education, because in the past police wouldn't stop you without cause. In fact, the information gleaned from a Civics class would probably inform you that such a stop would be illegal. Why should they educate you on how to behave in a situation which should never arise because it is illegal?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    16. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the applicant popped up, I was told to toss the into round file, regardless of qualifications.

      Maybe this is a big reason for outsourcing and H1B1 visas.... Harder to have an american criminal record if you've never lived there...

    17. Re:Education versus racism by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I know my rights. Part of the problem is that at least some part of the populace doesn't agree that we should have some of those rights. As long as there is any doubt, then the rights will begin to be taken away from us. Rights are a lot harder to get than to lose.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    18. Re:Education versus racism by Forgefather · · Score: 2

      I agree that courtesy goes a long way, but the problem that a lot of poorer neighborhoods are facing is that with laws as complex an vague as they are, many counties have criminalized everything short of staying home from work. I live ~5 miles from Ferguson and some of the crap that goes on in these county courts is unbelievable. They cops are unbelievably aggressive in issuing tickets because many of these municipal budgets are 60%-70% funded off of traffic tickets. As a result people are poked and prodded almost constantly which leads to frustration and anger. People believe that they are being victimized.

      Its easy to be nice the first few times, and to acknowledge that you made a mistake, but what about the tenth time that month? what about the 40th time that year? That is what a lot of these people are facing. There are 50% more warrants for arrest, based almost solely on failure to pay tickets, in Ferguson than there are people in the entire city. When you can't even get into a car without getting a ticket it becomes a lot harder to be civil.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    19. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Brand new account. I don't know if you're a good cop or a bad cop, but statistics say you're a bad cop.

      Every time you cover for a cop breaking the law, you are breaking the law. You are an accessory to a crime. Every time you don't report a fellow officer for committing a crime, you are an accessory to that crime.

      Don't be that cop. Break the cycle. Otherwise, STFU and rot in hell.

    20. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Stop and frisk simply should not exist. And it's not just racism that is a problem; as far as I'm concerned, everyone needs to be wary of the police and the government in general.

      Stop and frisk is a "tax collection" scheme intended to allow law enforcement to seize private property, particularly any cash in the person's possession. If their is no probable cause, there should be no stop and frisk. More fundamentally there should be no stop and frisk - period.

    21. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would we guess that few do? Could it be the rather obvious evidence that cops are in fact an out of control, establishment-defending militia?

    22. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You had parents. Sorry, but you had at least a parent, probably parents, and got told not to be an asshole.

      These kids, unfortunately, don't have parents, and their role models refer to police as "mother fucking pigs", well, they've got no indication to be civil from their upbringing. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not universally obvious that pissing off men with guns is to be avoided. If the locals stopped being assholes to the cops, the cops attitudes will change too. It can continue to devolve down the death spiral (LA) or improve (Atlanta).

    23. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, using statistics to berate someone who identifies as a cop. How progressive of you.

      I don't know if he's a good cop or a bad cop either, but I know that you're an asshole.

    24. Re:Education versus racism by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I had parents, I'm white, have a graduate degree, make six figures. I think of the police as mother-fucking-pigs because they are they enforcement side of the Constitution destroying political regime we have. While I realize that I'm not their prime target -- at this point in time -- that doesn't make the police nice or moral people. I see the racial bias stuff as nothing more than the pigs practicing for full on police state, at which point everyone will be a target.

      What will cause attitudes toward these assholes to change is when the police stop using SWAT to bust up home poker games, give up the military equipment, and start trying to _serve_ their community rather looking at us like enemies. The problem starts with the cops and the changes have to start in the pig stye.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    25. Re:Education versus racism by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      You seem like you just learned the word ilk, good job on that.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    26. Re:Education versus racism by poetmatt · · Score: 1

      Knowing your rights is the very definition of a civics class, as is knowing what to do with them.

    27. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know if he's a good cop or a bad cop either, but I know that you're an asshole.

      I've got a picture of several bad cops throwing a blanket over open beer bottles at a worse cop's wreck.

      Just like that, bad cops multiply like rats.

    28. Re:Education versus racism by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Same here.

      While my classes never covered the specifics of Stop and Frisk...in school, in the '80's, we were certainly taught what Miranda Rights were, why we had them, and what that meant to us.

      Somewhat related, in my senior year of High School, despite having polished off all of my academic requirements, I still needed a one semester credit in the shop and home economics world to meet graduation requirements. I had already learned to touch type on an IBM Selectric and driven an electro-mechanical driver's simulator in a single-wide trailer, but that wasn't enough.

      http://www.apsva.us/cms/lib2/V...

      I took a class called "Independent Living." We learned how to bake a cake, prepare a resume, balance a checkbook and change a tire -- and a few things in-between. Spending 2 hours of my life on Stop and Frisk would have fit nicely into that class if Stop and Frisk was a thing in the 80's in Arizona.

    29. Re:Education versus racism by porges · · Score: 1

      You had parents. Sorry, but you had at least a parent, probably parents, and got told not to be an asshole.

      These kids, unfortunately, don't have parents,

      I see no indication from the news story that the East Side Community High School is an orphanage.

    30. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Asshole. Don't give a fuck. When 99% of the apples are rotten, you throw the whole lot away.

      He has a chance to make a real difference. He just needs to put The People of his country first and his thin blue line second. Maybe he will. Statistically speaking though, he's not going to do shit, except perpetuate the problem.

      We don't have the ability to go after individual officers. Ever heard of qualified immunity?

    31. Re: Education versus racism by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      Sadly we shouldn't have to guess. The fact that we are likely to be surprised is a big bold highlight of important to consider.

    32. Re: Education versus racism by speed_rrracer · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of qualified immunity?

      Ever hear of what happens to that immunity when the officer acts outside the law?

      It's not strictly a police thing, it's a New York government thing. The bootlickers in New York are so far gone in their government worship that they feel teaching kids to kneel before Zod makes perfect sense. The citizens are so accustomed to living in service to their Masters this probably seemed like a great idea.

    33. Re: Education versus racism by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Statistics aside, one of the big issues is that problems with the police tend to be institutional not just individual. Even when an individual is a good cop (and I suspect most are) they are generally still making life easier for the bad ones. Most good cops, via action or inaction, are enabling the bad ones.

      Though if we do want to talk stats, we could dip into risk management. Cops are dangerous, when interacting with one there is a non-zero probability that something bad will happen to you. In weighing interactions this can be offset by potential utility if one needs help, but for general interaction there is little to justify the risk, so the police really are best avoided unless you have a reason to be approaching one. It is a sad situation, but the way things are structured right now there is too much of a chance of something going wrong and too few ways to mitigate the risks... you can not even defend yourself or even have the law as a potential threat to discourage them.

    34. Re:Education versus racism by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      It is amazing to me people are saying let the cops break the law here, and then sue. This is what America has declined to. Not the: We have liberties in this country that no one is above or can violate, instead we are now: If a cop is breaking the law let him, to hope you don't get killed. Consent tot whatever he asks and hope that maybe you can go through a court case to sue the shit out of them for taxpayer money settlements. Common sense flew the coop long ago.

    35. Re: Education versus racism by jopsen · · Score: 1

      A lot of us do. More than you would guess.

      Hmm... I don't think that's enough... The problem here is in large the adversarial nature of your justice system.
      With cops being allowed to lie during interrogation, the state offering plea bargains if you confess, etc...

      Cases like this were someone after hours of interrogations breaks and "admits"
      'You’re telling me you have a video, so I guess it happened but I have no memory of it.'

      The only reason that guy isn't rotting in prison, is because he could afford 200k in legal expenses.
      Lesson being, don't talk to the police in America. Doing so is a liability most people can't afford.

    36. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      While this is true in general, I have noticed an alarming increase in "Power tripping" police, especially in traffic control situations.

      One encounter I find particularly memorable involved myself and my brother, as we were testing out some recent valve work on an old clunker we had purchased. To put a little stress on the engine, we found a section of straight and disused highway to accellerate and brake on, but not radically so. Just a little juice to get the tach up, followed by braking. The vehicle had carbon fouled previously, and we wanted to blow any remaining crap out of the valves. This of course makes a "Vroom vroom!" noise, as the engine revs up. (this was an old, beat up carbaurator style vehicle. Not fuel injected. This little jaunt was intended to help with callibration of the fuel system, and to help dislodge old deposits.)

      It just so happens that this streach of highway was also "being radared" by one such power tripping traffic officer. The deal was, he was not stopped when he claimed to be using the radar. He was driving--In the opposite direction, heading towards us. We know for certain that our speed never exceeded the speed limit, and that our rate of accelleration was not in violation of any legal statutes. We know this, because:

      1) At the time, GPS was pretty new, and I was playing with mine. (I was the passenger) I had a full GPS data log of the trip, sampled every 3 seconds. Rate of accelleration is easy to determine.

      2) The vehicle's spedometer never got close to the speed limit; to maximize the effectiveness of the treatment, we slowed down to well under the speed limit before accellerating.

      The officer in question flashed his topper lights at us, and we stopped quickly and orderly. He then asked us if we knew how fast we were going. Politely, we informed him that we did indeed know how fast we were going, and how we knew this. At this point, the police officer began making assertions that we were being belligerant in a tone that betrayed his being furious at being questioned. He asserted that he had radar data indicating that we had violated the speed limit.

      My dad was a police officer for 26 years, and did everything from roadway law enforcement, to murder investigations during that time. As a consequence, I have a little inside knowledge about how a traffic radar gun operates, and several legal battles that had transpired from over-zealous traffic officers misusing them.. I asked the officer politely if he had stopped before using his radar gun, as any motion at all will alter the doppler shift that the beam uses to determine velocity and distance. This visibly flustered him, and he began hardlining that we were being uncooperative and that he would have to arrest us if we did not comply. We openly acknowledged exactly what we were doing, and that we had the GPS in the vehicle to monitor the vehicle's speed, as the vehicle was in the process of being serviced and may not have an accurate speedometer reading. I acknowledged that the GPS's polling period may not be sufficient to fully gauge the vehicle's rate of accelleration with the same accuracy as his radar gun, and jovially remarked that if we were indeed speeding, it was not intentional, and that if he could give us our reported speed from his radar logs, it would help us to better comply with the law by allowing us to know how much to adjust the spedometer, and that we would gladly accept the ticket if he could supply a number. (It should be noted that we were rank with the smell of old engine oil, were visibly smeared with the stuff, and that there were automotive tools strewn all through the vehicle. At no time did the tone of our voices ever leave the realm of politeness and earnest civil concern, despite the baiting and badering by the police officer, who was anything but those things.) The officer's face went a unique shade of scarlet, he became obstinate that he would not tell us what our reported speed was, and that he was going to write us a citation. This puzzled me, since the speed

    37. Re:Education versus racism by amorsen · · Score: 2

      If you follow 1-3) with US police, they will use the Reid Technique to abuse your compliance and extract a false statement. Then you better have the resources of a (no-longer) well-off family and the help of the foreign office of a small nation in order to eventually get freed, like Malthe Thomsen. (I hate linking to the Daily Mail, but the case has not been well-covered internationally.)

      The newspaper Politiken has in-depth coverage of the case in Danish.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    38. Re: Education versus racism by Loki_1929 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As some others have said in more colorful ways, being a good cop means doing everything you can under the law to get bad cops off the street. Bad cops doesn't just mean those taking bribes, planting evidence, etc. Bad cops includes police officers who unnecessarily approach situations with undue aggression and who unnecessarily escalate situations. I understand that much of an officer's interactions are either with people who aren't at their best or are with people who are just pain rotten to the core, but if that drives them into a pattern of cynicism and aggression not warranted by the situation, they can either self-report and get behind a desk and get counseling until their head gets back to a better place or they're bad cops.

      I'm a law-abiding citizen. Minus some exceeding the posted speed limit here and there, I'm not causing trouble. I also happen to work late quite a bit, which has led to numerous interactions with the police. Nearly all of those have been completely reasonable where everyone was decent and the situation was handled without any issue (usually just a "why are you here at [late time]?" followed up with a reasonable explanation, maybe running plates, in and out in 3 minutes kind of thing). In a very small number of cases, I was met by an adrenaline-pumped idiot who was very obviously itching to rip me out of the car and beat the Hell out of me. I've been berated and goaded by a cop who was doing everything he could to escalate the situation to where he could take stronger action. As I said, it's a very tiny number of issues out of all the times I've had contact with officers and I've always kept my cool and been in the right to the point where it didn't turn into anything. But all it would take is one of those adrenaline-pumped alpha assholes deciding I looked at him wrong and but for a camera recording the incident, he could very easily write up the report such that I was the aggressor and was threatening toward him and resisted arrest, thereby justifying any injuries. With that report and the word of the sworn officer, I end up with a criminal record and losing everything I've earned in life.

      And that's why it doesn't matter if there are 99 good cops for every one bad cop. Because that one bad cop can ruin so many peoples' lives. We as citizens are second-class when we file a report or step into a court room trying to stop a bad cop doing bad stuff. What's really needed are for all those cops who are decent people to start standing up against the ones who aren't, start calling them on their bullshit, start reporting them at work, and start testifying on behalf of people who are wronged by them. I understand that that hyper-aggressive adrenaline junky alpha asshole is great to have by your side when you're under fire, but you have a duty and a responsibility to either see that he gets right in the head or see that he finds a new profession where he doesn't have any legal authority. The more you protect assholes like that, the more of them you'll find around you and the more the citizens in your community will distrust and even hate the police.

      I support the good cops out there trying to help good and decent people and do the right thing. As for the bad cops out for a thrill? Well at the very very least, I want them off the streets and getting help. Stop protecting them. Stop protecting people who protect them.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    39. Re:Education versus racism by mi · · Score: 1

      in the face of institutional racism

      Is it really "racist" to fish, where the fish are?

      some racist thug

      The R-word again. Do you have any proof of NYPD being racist? All I've ever seen from your kind were arrest statistics — if disproportionally more Blacks are arrested, the logic goes, the police must be racist. That the group might be committing disproportionally more crimes is like that giant chocolate elephant in the room, which everybody pretends not to notice... Do you have anything more solid this time?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    40. Re: Education versus racism by mi · · Score: 1

      It's not strictly a police thing, it's a New York government thing.

      It is a government thing — fixed that for you. NYC has remained Illiberal for well over a century. They spend so much, they need a city's own income tax — in addition to Federal and the State's. The taxes and the mandates depress the economy keeping the poor in poverty, raising the crime rates. Then the solid "law-and-order" men overreact establishing the perfectly unconstitutional practices like this "stop-and-frisk". The tactics do help keep the crime low(er), so the populace supports it — Constitution be damned...

      The city is a living and breathing lesson on how not to govern, but those pro-government bootlickers you mentioned would like to see the same principles applied nationwide.

      Statists gonna state. Please, don't hate.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    41. Re: Education versus racism by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      but statistics say you're a bad cop.

      The media says that. Im not sure what statistics you're using, but Id be interested in seeing them.

      Granted I am a middle class white male, but my experience with the cops in the DC metro area has been generally good. FWIW my only bad cop experiences have been in DC itself, and it would be strange to attribute it to racism as generally the cops cant tell your race prior to pulling you over.

      Just in the future dont say "statistics say..." unless you're prepared to pull out those statistics.

    42. Re: Education versus racism by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      When 99% of the apples are rotten, you throw the whole lot away.

      Does anyone in this thread have actual statistics, or is this just a bunch of anecdotes and media narratives being parroted?

    43. Re:Education versus racism by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      2: Don't be "visible". Dress like a mouth, and you will be treated as one.

      This is an interesting one. While discussing the Michael Brown case, someone noted that, "noone should be shot while unarmed-- thats not even up for discussion. But it sure would be nice if someone like Michael Brown whose been made a martyr hadnt just been abusing a shopkeeper several minutes prior to his shooting."

      And the funny thing is, when you look at other media martyrs, you often see that they too arent really as squeaky clean as you might want your rallying point-- like that woman who got pulled into a RIAA case because "her daughter had been using Kazaa", until we later found out that she had heavily perjured herself and attempted to destroy evidence, or the case of Joel Tenenbaum (very similar).

      My theory is, regardless of the corruption or lack thereof in our society, if you go out of your way to break the law and cause trouble, youre simply more likely to run into the less pleasant elements in the police force.

      We should certainly, absolutely strive to eliminate any and all corruption, abuse of power, racism, and cronyism in our police force. But I would recommend to anyone in the meantime, that if you want a sure-fire way to avoid having to deal with it-- dont put yourself in situations where the cops have to know who you are. Thats just generally good life advice.

    44. Re:Education versus racism by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Being polite and respectful doesnt mean being a wet noodle with no backbone, it means not looking for a fight. For instance, this would be wrong:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Yes, the guy has no cause to answer questions. But not lowering your window? Immediately taking a hostile stance? You can just say "Listen officer, Im big into constitutional rights and I dont want to cause trouble but I dont feel like I can in good conscience answer your questions." You could call him sir, and speak clearly so he doesnt have to ask you to roll your window down.

      (All of that ignores the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the cops DO have the right to question the man, so his entire stance is a poor one with no actual legal basis)

      None of that has to put you at risk, but the difference between being a total douche about it and being courteous is pretty big.

    45. Re:Education versus racism by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Common sense says you are cooperative with the police officer, since doing otherwise can get you beaten and/or arrested. The fact that you are legally entirely in the right isn't going to help when the officer says he had to subdue you because you got belligerent.

      Suing after the fact is a much better outcome than having a murderer be put on paid leave while Internal Affairs whitewashes the case.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    46. Re:Education versus racism by nbritton · · Score: 1

      That's why you don't talk to the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    47. Re:Education versus racism by nbritton · · Score: 1

      Supreme Court has ruled that the cops DO have the right to question the man

      And you have the right to have counsel present, always invoke your right to counsel when being questioned by the police. Do not lie to the police, it's against the law to do that, instead invoke your right to counsel.

    48. Re:Education versus racism by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So basically, never leave your mom's basement.

      Can't see that catching on round these here parts.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    49. Re:Education versus racism by delcielo · · Score: 1

      I had parents, am white, have a college degree and make a similar income. I don't see the cops as pigs and I think it's silly to believe that the police force changes quickly enough to be the enforcement side of any particular regime. I think it's much more basic and understandable than that.

      The police do a dangerous job and over time the losses and realized risks add up until they feel threatened. They respond to the threat in a perfectly human manner; they get aggressive. Control the situation. Drive the situation. So they're more likely now than ever to use the tazer/mace/gun, etc.

      The effect of this over time is that we citizens feel threatened. So how do we respond? The same way! With aggression. If you yell at me and don't give me a chance to explain anything, ask what's going on, even process what you're telling me before you arm bar me into the ground and drive your knee into my neck, I'm going to respond in a manner that likely doesn't match what the police want me to do.

      This is normal human behavior and escalates as the situation escalates. In the middle of the night, even if you knock and announce loudly that you're the police, if you don't give me time to realize that I just heard a voice saying they were the cops, to get up, put on a robe, tell my wife and daughter to relax it'll be okay, shut the dog in a room, look out the peephole to verify that you actually are the cops, etc., before you knock the door in, throw a flashbang, storm the house with M4s and bright lights, etc. I'm likely to respond angrily and without thought. I'm simply reacting at that point, and it's your (cops) fault, not mine for creating that situation. The only person who would act in a measured and thoughtful manner at that point is the criminal who expected such an encounter.

      If there is a societal conflict between the populous and the police, one side must surrender to win, and our traditional view of society in this nation suggests that it should be the cops who back down.

      --
      Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
    50. Re:Education versus racism by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yay, Bennet's back!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    51. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since minorities don't pay taxes on their drug earnings and landscaping jobs, "stop and frisk" is the only way for these communities to make their budgets.

    52. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      License plate into computer, registered owner pops up... dude, he knows who you are before he sees you.

    53. Re:Education versus racism by Gonoff · · Score: 1

      3) be respectful

      Why? Be polite certainly but save your respect for when they are actually Protecting and Serving.

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    54. Re:Education versus racism by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      By the csv file for 2012 avalable at: http://www.nyclu.org/content/s...

      57.9% of (black|black-hispanic) people who were stopped were arrested.
      65.7% of the people whose race was recorded and it wasn't black or black-hispanic who were stopped were arrested.

      61.7% of stops were of black or black-hispanic people.

      So they stop the people who are less likely to be arrested more often. So where are your stats?

    55. Re:Education versus racism by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      As is hopefully obvious, drop those arrest percentages by a factor of ten.

      Who knew you multiply by 100 to make a percentage and not by 1000.

    56. Re:Education versus racism by anagama · · Score: 1

      Much of this change with the police occurred in the last 20 years with the militarization skyrocketing after 9/11. I don't know whether to call that rapid change or not -- it seems pretty rapid to me having occurred from my 20s to my 40s. Here in my smallish town of 80k, with many miles of fields and forests between it the next town of any consequence, the police have at least a two military vehicles. What is that for if not for practice and training as Police State Enforcers? If they aren't ready to take on that role now, how long would it take to train them as a paramilitary police force? Probably just a few years to hire up some of those desperate for a decent job and let them practice on the equipment they already have.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    57. Re:Education versus racism by mi · · Score: 1

      57.9% of (black|black-hispanic) people who were stopped were arrested.

      Seems like a pretty good hit-ratio — if one is not bothered by the whole thing being against Constitution to begin with, that is.

      65.7% of the people whose race was recorded [emphasis mine -mi] and it wasn't black or black-hispanic who were stopped were arrested.

      The "whose race was recorded" is a caveat you can drive a truck through...

      So they stop the people who are less likely to be arrested more often.

      Arrest is not the only possible outcome of frisking finding something illegal. Small amounts of marijuana, for example, will not result in arrest — the stuff is still illegal (for better or worse).

      So where are your stats?

      I made no claims — for all I know, NYPD might be racist — I'm simply scrutinizing the unsubstantiated claims by others. So far, no proof was presented...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    58. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who needs an orphanage when your parents can neglect you in the comfort of your own home?

    59. Re:Education versus racism by spacepimp · · Score: 1

      There is nothing about saying. I do not consent to this search, or in showing you identification that makes you belligerent. Once you have given your ID or consent to search you cannot sue, as they've not broken any laws. It isn't uncooperative to say you are going to operate within your rights. It isn't illegal for them to search if you've said go for it so what would you then sue them for?

    60. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's curious how educated, intelligent people, who normally have no problem with concepts like 'nuance' and 'balance', seem to lose all perspective when talking about the police.

      Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has bad days as well as good. That's true of cops as much as anyone. Sure, you can say they should be more self-disciplined to keep their cool under pressure, but you have no idea of the sort of pressure they're routinely put under. Maybe the "adreneline-pumped idiot" had twenty years of stainless, smiling, courteous service behind him, and had just arrived fresh from his third assignment that day of scraping someone off the street after they'd been mown down by a car just like yours. I don't know, and nor do you. Should he be fired for a lapse like that?

      And once you start admitting the validity of questions like that, it suddenly becomes a lot clearer why the "good cops" don't practice zero tolerance towards "bad cops". Because probably, even the best cop can remember those few times when they fell short of their ideal. And all but the worst cops, will also put in many hours of honest, hard, soul-destroying work. And all cops understand that. It's not a case of "good" vs "bad", it's all - (almost) always - shades of grey.

      Remember, cops by definition tend to meet people at their worst. Nobody ever says "Oh, a wedding, how lovely! Let's call a cop!"

    61. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They won't.
      Eventually, eventually, it will be a war on all sides.
      This is how things always are with a government vs everyone else.

    62. Re: Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Criminal Faggot Detected.

    63. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, this will shock you.

      I had parents,

      Me too! Since the day I was conceived.
      (Still do have two of them, though that's rather beside the point.)

    64. Re:Education versus racism by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Reid technique has ensured that less than 20% of people questioned get counsel. Generally people who are innocent will not ask for counsel; they just want to cooperate so the police can see that they are innocent, and asking for counsel is something they think only criminals do.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    65. Re: Education versus racism by sribe · · Score: 1

      Maybe the "adreneline-pumped idiot" had twenty years of stainless, smiling, courteous service behind him...

      Maybe, but not likely. First off, of course, the good cop would only do that very rarely, while the bad cop makes it his standard operating procedure. Second off, the good cop has that innate moral compass which at some point reigns in his behavior when he realizes what he's doing, while the bad cop just continues with escalation.

    66. Re:Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4) always act as if you are on camera and its going on the news

      I love Big Brother too.

  13. Training? by sjbe · · Score: 1

    We could send them through something called "training" before we let them loose on the streets. Where can I collect my Nobel Prize?

    Wow! Training eliminates racism? Training gets rid of stupid racists laws? Training solves economic and social inequality? How did we never think of this before...[/sarcasm]

    1. Re:Training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps studying history could answer all of your questions, however I do know that training will show one how to put opening tags.

    2. Re:Training? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The more productive method would probably be external oversight that actually has teeth instead of internal wrist slapping followed by a high five.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could send them through something called "training" before we let them loose on the streets. Where can I collect my Nobel Prize?

      Wow! Training eliminates racism?]

      Training gives standards of behavior to follow. It does not change feelings (and thus racism in the first instance) but rather behavior. Policemen have the right to hate and detest black people with every fiber of their being. They don't have the right to act on that. If they can't reconcile that, it's the wrong job for them. Just changing behavior might not seem like much. But the changed behavior also leads to changed reactions. Once policemen are no longer allowed to behave like homocidal pigs, they stop being perceived as homocidal pigs. Which also changes attitudes, fear and respect.

      When the appearance of a police officer makes you less rather than more comfortable, they are not doing their job right.

    4. Re:Training? by fatwilbur · · Score: 1

      Look to Canada for a few provinces where this is being done with success:

      Alberta Serious Incident Response Team: ASIRT has jurisdiction over all sworn police officers in the Province of Alberta. Their mandate is to investigate incidents or complaints involving serious injury* or death of any person, and matters of a serious or sensitive nature, that may have resulted from the actions of a police officer.

      Any time a person is killed by police results in an automatic investigation - and I've seen a number of them result in charges against police officers. Ontario looks to have done the same with the Special Investigations Unit.

      I think the theme for success you will see is having a civilian agency.

  14. Correct Conclusions. by t20alex · · Score: 0

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer..

    It is the absolutely correct conlcusion the kids can come to. Wrong group of people can beat you up, and in wort case kill you. Police can beat you up, kill you, or ruin your life with a permanent record. Hail drug war.

  15. Trust by sjbe · · Score: 2

    It sounds like cops hate anyone who is not a cop.

    Hate is probably the wrong word for most cops but it would be fair to say cops don't trust anyone who isn't a cop. Cops tend to (understandably) have an us versus them world view and see everyone's actions as those of a potential suspect. Apply a bit of low grade racism and you have a real problem with police distrusting a minority population and the minority population growing to distrust the police.

    1. Re:Trust by thedonger · · Score: 0

      It sounds like cops hate anyone who is not a cop.

      Hate is probably the wrong word for most cops but it would be fair to say cops don't trust anyone who isn't a cop. Cops tend to (understandably) have an us versus them world view and see everyone's actions as those of a potential suspect. Apply a bit of low grade racism and you have a real problem with police distrusting a minority population and the minority population growing to distrust the police.

      If computer repair technicians had even the remotest of chances that when they worked on certain types of machines that said machines would purposefully electrocute them, they would necessarily grow to not trust those machines or machines that looked just like them, and treat them differently than other machines.

      Or, if you prefer, it is easy for us to sit back and judge when our job is never actively trying to kill us.

      I'm not saying I agree with stop and frisk, nor am I saying that cops are above criticism. But the public seems to hop on the anti-cop bandwagon pretty quickly. Maybe they are victims, too; a product of how we have let society evolve?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    2. Re:Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > understandably
      Why is it understandable?
      It's only because cops in the US are so shit that they shoot everyone on sight that no one likes them, and that in turn creates an us vs them situation.
      I don't see that here in the Netherlands, so I don't think it automatically follows that cops should have an us vs them view.

    3. Re:Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe true with electricians but the problem is that the police (if they were electricians) seems to treat like crap any machine that isn't their definition of white with the blacks and those with what looks like a head wrap coming in for unusual and unnecessary treatment. It would seem to me that (using the electrician analogy) a fire extinguisher or even a fire hose is often used on a machine before one approaches, even if teh case is lifted up and there are no batteries nor is it attached to power outlet .

    4. Re:Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was about to say the same thing, but from an American perspective. Why is it understandable? Because they choose to remove themselves from the society they're supposed to serve? Because they choose to be antisocial, and yes, I mean antisocial, not asocial, in that they feel it's their job to wage war against society. Because they can't be bothered to get to know the people in the community? None of this is understandable. Fact is, most of a cops behaviors, if performed by anybody else would be considered felony menacing, but it's fine if they do it? BS. None of their behavior is "understandable", it's that they're a bunch of antisocial idiots on power trips.

      Seriously, before anybody tries to defend them, answer me this, when was the last time you can think of that a cop actually prevented a crime. Not caught a criminal, but actually prevented a crime from happening.

    5. Re:Trust by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Cops tend to (understandably) have an us versus them world view and see everyone's actions as those of a potential suspect.

      What? Why is that understandable? You could say that it's understandable that waiters have an us-vs-them worldview. Or IT support. Or musicians. Or doctors. Or ANY group of people that interacts with anyone else in a professional capacity. And all of it is bullshit tribalism that makes for shitty services.

      Hate is probably the wrong word for most cops but it would be fair to say cops don't trust anyone who isn't a cop. ... Apply a bit of low grade racism and you have a real problem with police distrusting a minority population and the minority population growing to distrust the police.

      Hell, I'm a pasty-ass cracker from upper-middle society and I distrust the police. I know that I can afford a lawyer that means a whole swath of laws actually apply to the police during their interactions with me, but things like civil forfeiture, swatting, and local events give me good reason to distrust the cops. The complain that this teaches children to fear and avoid cops might be accurate, in all ways.

      Now it's not like all cops are bad cops. It only takes one rotten apple to poison a department though, and they seem to have a culture of looking after their own. So if one screws up, the rest will cover for him. Because hey, for most of them it's just a job. Something they go into in the morning, and leave at night. They want to retire eventually. And they don't want to rock the boat. And now you have a perfectly reasonable guy who suspects that O'maley down the hall got into the evidence locker when his buddy punched that guy, but doesn't really have any proof, and sure as shit isn't going to rat on his co-worker, and generally just goes along with the flow.

    6. Re:Trust by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      This makes a lot of sense, but the problem that I see is that Police in other countries are not having the same issues with lack of trust and they are frequently required to do their jobs without even a sidearm much less and assault rifle and an MRAP. Secondly most cops you will meet don't escalate a situation because they feel that their person is in danger, they escalate because they feel that their pride is in danger. Try telling a cop no to an unlawful search and revel as they pull out every intimidating trick in the book to scare you into submission.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    7. Re:Trust by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      If in the past, brand X has shocked you 1% of the time and brand Y has shocked you 10% of the time, you are going to be more cautious around brand Y. This is millions of years of evolution of pattern recognition skills we are talking about. You have to fix both sides of the issue. Make brand Y less prone to shock and over time, the electrician will trust it again.
      That being said, stop and frisk is illegal and unconstitutional and needs to be abolished.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:Trust by sjbe · · Score: 1

      What? Why is that understandable?

      Because every day they have to go into situations where their lives are potentially in danger. Nobody calls the police to give them cookies or hugs. Their job is dangerous and that tends to make them a bit tribal. Every single time a police officer stops a suspect there is a chance they could be injured or worse. Most people are good decent people but it's impossible to tell in advance the few that are not because they don't look any different. If some small percent of the people you dealt with on a daily basis represented a non-trivial chance of you being injured you would be a little cautious about who you trusted too.

      You could say that it's understandable that waiters have an us-vs-them worldview. Or IT support. Or musicians. Or doctors.

      Exactly my point. I said it is understandable. I did not say it was the right thing to do. You can understand why someone does something without supporting what they are doing. I understand why cops behave the way they do. Doesn't mean I condone their behavior when it becomes a problem.

      Oh, and except for maybe doctors in dangerous areas none of those groups you mention face even close the amount of danger that cops do. IT support is not likely to get shot even though a few of the worse ones might actually deserve it. (yes that's a joke) I'm not especially worried about anyone drawing a gun on me in my day job.

    9. Re:Trust by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Stupid, inane post simply to say ... thanks, that is an excellent comic that you linked to with an excellent point.

    10. Re:Trust by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Iirc, taxi drivers and overnight convenience store clerks have more dangerous jobs than cops. In fairness, cabbies are pretty aggressive. But the overnight clerks are generally super chill, despite being in an objectively dangerous job. So while the danger of police work may play some role in their confrontational behavior, clearly there are other factors at work too.

  16. Re:police are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as if most people that end up burning their neighborhoods actually own anything in them. You sound like a cop yourself.

  17. Race baiters by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

    Pure and simple. They are priming "young people" for the fight against "the man". Who are the enemy? Police officers. White police officers in particular. While in reality the police force in NY includes a lot of colored officers. These are to be respected. Go figure.

    1. Re:Race baiters by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really don't understand how you can come to this conclusion without harboring some seriously racist ideas yourself. Unarmed black kids are getting killed by the police all over the country. That is not an acceptable outcome. The school can't fix the interaction from the side of the police officers, but they can teach kids how to respond in those situations so that the risk is minimized. How can that be anything but good?

    2. Re:Race baiters by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I also think it's important to understand the context of the "stop and frisk" stuff going on in NYC. There's a practice of randomly searching people without any real grounds for a search, and statistically, minorities are being frisked much more often than white people. A while back, there was even a recording leaked where police officers were being specifically instructed to search young black men.

      If police are going to target young black men, it seems only reasonable that young black men should be educated on how to respond so as to protect their rights and to avoid getting hurt.

    3. Re:Race baiters by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Pure and simple. They are priming "young people" for the fight against "the man". Who are the enemy? Police officers. White police officers in particular. While in reality the police force in NY includes a lot of colored officers. These are to be respected. Go figure.

      Actually, I'm with George Carlin on this one, regardless of ethnic background:

      It's not that I don't like the police, I just feel better when they're not around.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    4. Re:Race baiters by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Unarmed white kids are killed by police all over the country as well. Why is it we only get up in arms when it is a black kid? Why do we have to make everything about race?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    5. Re:Race baiters by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Point me to that please. There was that guy Dillon Taylor (who wasn't even white, he was hispanic) that every republican was yelling about like it nullifies Michael Brown, but beyond that I haven't seen any. At the same time, there were tons of unarmed black people killed by the police in my city alone. If white kids are getting killed, then sure that is a problem and we should also be concerned about it. Just like I was equally upset when Dillon Taylor was shot. But I don't see any evidence that it is prevalent to the degree that black people being shot is.

    6. Re:Race baiters by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      A little hint: "GottMitUns" is German and translates to "GodWithUs". Which just so happens to be the motto of the German military army (and a few other groups) until the end of WW2. Generally, it's fairly safe to assume that someone still sporting that motto has some serious hang-ups with German military and groups from 1900s to 1945.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:Race baiters by h4ck7h3p14n37 · · Score: 1

      Citations please? I'm in Chicago and the kids getting shot are definitely armed.

    8. Re:Race baiters by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Here, let me google that for you.
      I don't know who Dillon Taylor is, but I guess we have to decide whether Hispanics are white people or not. It appears they are "the white man" when they shoot Trayvon, but they are a minority when they are unarmed and get shot.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    9. Re:Race baiters by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      Did you even bother to look at that page you linked you? Every news article on there is about BLACK people being shot by WHITE police officers, except the one I noted about Dillon Taylor. Kindly go away now.

    10. Re:Race baiters by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      There are some famous ones, of course:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Then you can check out this out for a big list:
      http://www.theroot.com/photos/...

      There are a lot more than that though. For instance, there are two from just this week:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...
      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...

    11. Re:Race baiters by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

      Young black man are much more likely to commit violent crimes. Per FBI statistics 60% of all violent crime is committed by 6% of population. Care to guess their demographics? Random searches are not acceptable, but police got to do their job somehow. And that involves risk assessment etc. Maybe ACLU should educate those "kids" on the importance of not breaking the law in the first place?

    12. Re:Race baiters by GottMitUns · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You can read German.

    13. Re:Race baiters by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Well I think you're missing a few things. For one thing, I may be wrong about this, but I believe that the majority of violent crimes are actually committed by white people. The statistic that gets cited a lot is that black people make up a disproportionate amount of violent crime-- that is, if they make up 30% of the population (I don't remember what their actual population is), then they make up more than 30% of the crime.

      But anyway, that's not really the point. The point is, even if the majority of violent criminals were black, it does not then follow that the majority of black people are violent criminals. It's really a big logical jump to assume that these particular kids are violent criminals, so your talk about "educating these kids not to break the law" is completely unfounded.

      But even forgetting all that for a second, I think you're missing a pretty important thing: Even if they were seeking out criminals for this educational program, it would still be the best thing for everyone involved. Essentially, they're teaching kids how to deal with police officers so that things don't escalate to the point of violence. Nobody wants more stories of teenage kids getting shot by police officers. These kids don't want to get shot, the public generally doesn't want them to get shot, and I don't think most police officers want to shoot them.

      Now there's the issue of teaching the kids to assert their constitutional rights. I don't see this as a problem. They have every right to assert those rights. Now maybe you'll drag out that tired concept that we hear so often, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." Why shouldn't these kids allow these searches, unless they're criminals, right? Well in just the same way, I'd ask this of the police: If your searches are legal and ethical, then you have nothing to fear. The only problem with people asserting their rights is that it prevents the police from conducting searches that they have no right to conduct anyway.

  18. Re:police are good by cryptizard · · Score: 1, Troll

    Good trolling effort, but a bit too obvious. Better luck next time.

  19. Re:police are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "how to get away with a crime and be disrespectful"

    the crime of going about your day and wanting your fourth amendment rights upheld
    FTFY

  20. Effective Lessons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

    Then the lessons are effective and teaching exactly what they need to teach.

  21. Evolving world... by lionchild · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are a good deal of "common sense" things that haven't seemed to soak into younger generations. Things that someone born in the 70's, 80's and 90's would likely have been exposed to and had been "taught" to some degree or another. The Police force has changed. The same cop may not patrol the same neighborhood 4 or 5 days a week. When they did, they got to know the neighborhood. They knew it's people, who "belonged" there and who didn't. Many lived not-too-far away and lived in a similar neighborhood. The Police and the people understood one another, had common ground. It seems that balance has changed.

    If it's not going to go back to something like that, then our youth probably do need to be "taught" how to interact with these authority figures who aren't from their neighborhood, don't know them from the drug-dealer down the street. Until we sort out how to make the Police more local to any place it protects, make them feel like neighbors, then we're not doing the right thing unless we teach the youth how to properly interact with Police, without disrespect for either party. Remember: In the same way a Fireman runs into a burning building; this Officer is going to be running towards the gunfire if there's trouble, not away from it like the average youth on the street.

    Bottom Line: If our Police aren't going to also be our neighbors, in our neighborhoods, then we need to re-learn out how interact with them.

    --
    Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
    1. Re:Evolving world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true nerd. Don't fix the problem, 'fix' the person.

      In this case, rather than 34,000 cops 'learning' how the law works, we have to have a re-education class for the 8.5 million people in NYC.

      Insightful....? No, just plain stupid.

    2. Re:Evolving world... by Entropius · · Score: 1

      Remember: In the same way a Fireman runs into a burning building; this Officer is going to be running towards the gunfire if there's trouble, not away from it like the average youth on the street.

      If my experience with the "youths on the street" in Baltimore is any indication, they'll be running toward the gunfire, fumbling for their cellphone cameras, chanting "World Star Hip Hop".

    3. Re:Evolving world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Officer is going to be running towards the gunfire if there's trouble, not away from it like the average youth on the street.

      Nope.

    4. Re:Evolving world... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Your post is somewhat incoherent.

      You start out saying that the youth of today haven't learned what we learned, then you say but the world of today isn't what it used to be.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:Evolving world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember: In the same way a Fireman runs into a burning building; this Officer is going to be running towards the gunfire if there's trouble, not away from it like the average youth on the street.

      If my experience with the "youths on the street" in Baltimore is any indication, they'll be running toward the gunfire, fumbling for their cellphone cameras, chanting "World Star Hip Hop".

      And my experience with the cops is that, unless it's a donut, they won't run toward anything until they have at least a couple of other officers as backup. GPs notion of what cops are like seems to come out of the movies rather than any version of reality I'm familiar with.

  22. A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: line incredibly irritating?

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:A: Because it breaks the flow of a message by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS and BIND.... breaking the flow of a message.... lol that's hilarious!!!

  23. Just promise to do so by raymorris · · Score: 0

    Eh, you can just SAY you'll do something good in a few to get your nobel peace prize. Worked for Obama.

    1. Re:Just promise to do so by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Eh, you can just SAY you'll do something good in a few to get your nobel peace prize. Worked for Obama.

      BS. He got the prize for Not Being Bush.

      A container of yogurt could have done as much.

    2. Re:Just promise to do so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, you can just SAY you'll do something good in a few to get your nobel peace prize. Worked for Obama.

      BS. He got the prize for Not Being Bush.

      A container of yogurt could have done as much.

      MMMM....Yogurt!

  24. school curriculums? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    The plural of curriculum is curricula .
    It is Latin.

    1. Re:school curriculums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is correct, if you're speaking Latin. In English it's curriculums. According to the Chicago manual of style, they're both right

      http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/Plurals/faq0009.html

    2. Re: school curriculums? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FROM THE PROVERBIAL TOP ROPE!

    3. Re:school curriculums? by lgw · · Score: 1

      This language right here that you're reading? Not Latin. It's perfectly fine to use the English plural of English words, whatever language they're borrowed from (it's not like English has many words that weren't taken from another language). To do otherwise come across as pretentious pseudo-intellectualism, except perhaps in a formal context. Plus, most people end up embarrassing themselves with something like "octopi" when they try.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:school curriculums? by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tips. I'm going to post this on all the fora I visit! :)

    5. Re:school curriculums? by QRDeNameland · · Score: 1

      It's perfectly fine to use the English plural of English words, whatever language they're borrowed from ...

      As with much of the English language, it depends on the specific case. If you were to use "datums", "agendums", "bacteriums", or "criterions" instead of "data", "agenda", "bacteria", or "criteria", those would be nearly universally considered incorrect. There is not much rhyme or reason other than how the usage evolved in practice.

      Not trying to be pedantic, just pointing out that English has few hard and fast rules in that regard. And on that note, I'm off to meet up with some of my fellow alumnuses from college for a night at the opuses. :)

      --
      Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
    6. Re:school curriculums? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Of course, but in all those cases, the singular is uncommon- the plural was really the borrowed word. Most people would say "one piece of data", "one agenda item", "one bacteria", or "one criteria" (only the last one bothers me, as "criteria" seems plural instead of uncountable to me).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. The really sad part.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Let's not dick around on the nonsensical euphemism treadmill.

    We are talking about skin color. Not "ethnic" or "colored" or "negro" or "people of color" or "African American". The appropriate term, IMO, being inoffensive and also accurate to the topic, would be "black".

    As a blue eyed white guy, I hear some awful things - like many white people have no problem with what the NYPD is doing.

    They do not seem to understand that when an American's rights are violated, it chips away at all American's.

    1. Re:The really sad part.... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      Let's not dick around on the nonsensical euphemism treadmill.

      We are talking about skin color. Not "ethnic" or "colored" or "negro" or "people of color" or "African American". The appropriate term, IMO, being inoffensive and also accurate to the topic, would be "black".

      As a blue eyed white guy, I hear some awful things - like many white people have no problem with what the NYPD is doing.

      They do not seem to understand that when an American's rights are violated, it chips away at all American's.

      Despite your apparent issue with apostrophes, I agree completely. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. No other nation has its basis in its founding documents. All other nations are based on ethnicity, religion, the longevity of the ruling junta, etc.

      When we turn our back on those founding principles and the rule of law, even if that's only against a certain segment of our nation, we are all diminished, and we all lose.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  26. Confused by Ron+Goodman · · Score: 1

    I thought stop and frisk had been eliminated when the new mayor took over. Did I miss something? (I think the program described is a good idea, though.)

    1. Re:Confused by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      That was my first reaction too. I don't live in NYC but remember that the new mayor made a big deal about stopping Stop and Frisk. Looking at Wikipedia, it looks like de Blasio only promised to "reform" the program. Stop and Frisk was reduced but still happens (mostly in Latino and African-American neighborhoods).

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  27. Re:dizirehberi.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I can improve on your post.

    For great justice, worthless copypasted spam and some in your face bestiality porn, get on over to dizirehberi.org .

    Save your thanks.

  28. Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.

    So wait, we're assuming that they're all criminals to begin with?

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    1. Re: Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you have nothing to hide"??? Ah, yes. That old fascist gem. Because police are NEVER biased or corrupt. Yes. They have superior sensibilities and morals.
      [sarcasm off]

    2. Re: Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, that old WHOOSH.

    3. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.

      So wait, we're assuming that they're all criminals to begin with?

      Welcome to post-1984 USA. Now take off your shoes and drop your pants and be prepared to show your papers.

    4. Re: Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading it again ... yes, whoosh on me. My bad.

    5. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.

      So wait, we're assuming that they're all criminals to begin with?

      "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

      Interacting with law enforcement in any way is always to be avoided if you have the choice. One day I was walking home from work dressed in business casual attire in a quiet neighbourhood, yet a police officer driving by decided he better ask my name. Harassment plain and simple.

    6. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.

      So wait, we're assuming that they're all criminals to begin with?

      Well, the police certainly do.

    7. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So wait, you're assuming that anyone in need of criminal defense advice must be a criminal?

    8. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One day I was walking home from work dressed in business casual attire in a quiet neighbourhood, yet a police officer driving by decided he better ask my name. Harassment plain and simple.

      Your example doesn't really show any police harassment. IANAL but I'm pretty sure that the police have broad discretion to stop and ask you to identify yourself; this is why it is a good idea (but not required!) to have picture ID on you at all times. I don't even think they have to have any probable cause either, but I could be wrong about this last point. That being said, I do think it best to avoid interacting with police; way too many police officers seem to be bullies on a power trip.

    9. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      Petty harassment is still harassment.

    10. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.

      So wait, we're assuming that they're all criminals to begin with?

      The even more peculiar conclusion that can be drawn from this is that these "law-enforcement experts" think there's something wrong with offering criminal defense advice in the first place.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    11. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by davydagger · · Score: 1

      So wait, we're assuming the only people police harrass are criminals to begin with. In large cities that are "trendy", law enforcement harrasses the fuck out of the poor and minorities to make room for hipsters who'd pay more in rent.

    12. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by surfinokie · · Score: 1

      Yes, this. Once upon a time, in most places, police spent most of their time "policing", but it seems there has been a fundamental shift from policing to law enforcement. Policing in my mind involves actively making sure public order is kept, people are protected, and problem avoidance is the focus. Law enforcement involves actively searching for instances laws being broken. There is a difference. And the difference breeds a different mindset with the LE mindset supporting a hunters/hunted environment as opposed to a helpful friend with a stick in case shit gets too far sideways.

      --
      Chance 'em.
    13. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the courts need to presume innocence. The police are free to presume criminal intent all they want, although they are nominally supposed to be able to justify their reasoning for doing so.

    14. Re:Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want to search my locked car they better get a warrant.

  29. Re:police are good by Shados · · Score: 1

    Thats definitely the obvious conclusion, but I'm not so sure. The way I see it, people of all kind get arrested every day. You generally only hear about certain ethnic or social groups (its not just about color) getting unfairly arrested in the news, while my friends, most of which are not in those groups (statistics and all...), also complain about being arrested for no good reason all the time.

    But generally, a well educated, upstanding citizen will just grind their teeth, and say "Yes sir, grrr, of course sir" and get a slap on the wrist. Many members of these other groups instead will make a ton of mistakes, incriminate themselves, do stuff that will get themselves in trouble, and then get arrested where they shouldn't have. Then they'll bitch they got profiled because the first person I described didn't get arrested and they did.

    If you show them how other people act in these scenarios, they can at least also be an apple in the apple to apple comparison.

  30. Re:police are good by spacepimp · · Score: 1

    In your estimation the ACLU informing these kids about their rights as civilians is wrong? Clearly you have something at stake in this debate, and should be forthcoming in your comments as such.

  31. Everyone involved in stop and frisk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    needs to be in prison. Until that happens this country is a sham.

  32. Re:police are good by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 1

    I actually disagree to a point with your comments.

    Yes, police are there to enforce laws, but I would argue to differ on that they are there to protect you. They are there to protect society in general, not necessarily you, and the powers they have only allow them to really put you in jail (or taz you and put you in jail, or shoot you and put you in jail, or shoot you and put you in a grave). That is really the extent of their power.

    If you don't believe me, go read the miranda rights. By talking and interacting with police, they only thing they can really do is put you in jail. It is not up to them to prove your innocence in a potential crime, they are there to prove you guilty, and anything you say or do can and will be used against you.

    I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it is the current reality that we live under. 50-70 years ago, this simply wasn't the case everywhere in the nation, but not anymore (sure there were sections, especially if you were a minority that this happened to even back then). You can't simply talk to police anymore, because you don't know the laws, and you don't know what other testimony that the police may have already been given before they come to talk to you. And since they don't have to tell you the truth, you can not even believe anything the police tell you, because it could simply be a tactic to get you to be arrested.

    --
    We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
  33. It doesn't both by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    er me that much.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  34. News for Nerds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this News for Nerds, or the personal blog of Bennett Haselton, Hugh Pickens and mdsolar?

  35. Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Of course, if you have nothing to hide you have no need for knowledge other than "Do what we tell you to do. We're always right.

  36. Incentives matter by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    Regardless of how correct it is for cops not to alienate the people, the benefits atthe moment would mainly accrue to someone else so there is not much motivation to get it right.

    On the other hand, knowing how to defend your rights without providing something that looks like probable cause to the cop reaps rewards immediately, and in the long term will provide incentives to the cop (in avoiding the wrath of the DA for cases through out for technicalities).

  37. the right conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “It’s unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,”

    That's because the police ARE a fearful group to be avoided at all costs...

  38. You started your comment in the body. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    And finished it in the subject line.

    Which is incredibly annoying but is nothing like the other way round.

  39. #PantsUpDontLoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the feminists insist we need to teach boys not to rape we also need to teach blacks to stop attacking police officers then rioting when they get shot.

    1. Re:#PantsUpDontLoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the feminists insist we need to teach boys not to rape we also need to teach blacks to stop attacking police officers then rioting when they get shot.

      Come on troll. You're just phoning it in here. You can do better than that. Sigh. Perhaps we need the GNAA to start running trolling classes in the schools too.

    2. Re:#PantsUpDontLoot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's also teach the feminists not to be ugly AND to stfu.

  40. Both sides safe and in control? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is about making sure both sides are walking away from the situation safe and in control."

    Stop-and-frisk is nothing about both sides being in control - it's all a one-sided exercise of power.

  41. Re-educate about crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simplest solution would be to teach brown and black cultures that crime is not acceptable. Instead of celebrating, encouraging, and enabling crime, these cultures should stigmatize it. Teach children that it is a life-ruining mistake. Expose the "snitches get stitches" mentality for what it really is -- passive, silent support for crime in your community. Let children know that criminals are the bad guys.

    Black and brown cultures have integrated crime to the point where it is seen as a legitimate way to support yourself or your family, while completely failing to observe that crime is hard to keep up as you get older, has severe ramifications for your employment once you stop being a criminal, and is not a stable, reliable way to generate income. It isn't even an option; engaging in crime is the point at which your strategy towards life has failed.

    As long as these cultures handle crime as a rite of passage and as an acceptable alternative to legal employment, their youths will continue to be hounded by the police. And when you look at how such an overwhelmingly large amount of crime is caused by these groups, you can see why law enforcement seeks them out. When 99% of young black men are murdered by young black men, the police will stop and frisk young black men. It's that simple.

    There's a reason we don't hear about Chinese people being targeted by the stop-and-frisk policy, and that's because their culture rejects crime. This issue isn't about the police, or current laws, it's about culture. Cultures that embrace and support crime will always be at odds with law enforcement.

    1. Re:Re-educate about crime by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The simplest solution would be to teach brown and black cultures that crime is not acceptable. Instead of celebrating, encouraging, and enabling crime, these cultures should stigmatize it. Teach children that it is a life-ruining mistake. Expose the "snitches get stitches" mentality for what it really is -- passive, silent support for crime in your community. Let children know that criminals are the bad guys.

      Black and brown cultures have integrated crime to the point where it is seen as a legitimate way to support yourself or your family, while completely failing to observe that crime is hard to keep up as you get older, has severe ramifications for your employment once you stop being a criminal, and is not a stable, reliable way to generate income. It isn't even an option; engaging in crime is the point at which your strategy towards life has failed.

      As long as these cultures handle crime as a rite of passage and as an acceptable alternative to legal employment, their youths will continue to be hounded by the police. And when you look at how such an overwhelmingly large amount of crime is caused by these groups, you can see why law enforcement seeks them out. When 99% of young black men are murdered by young black men, the police will stop and frisk young black men. It's that simple.

      There's a reason we don't hear about Chinese people being targeted by the stop-and-frisk policy, and that's because their culture rejects crime. This issue isn't about the police, or current laws, it's about culture. Cultures that embrace and support crime will always be at odds with law enforcement.

      Can we talk about the culture of crime that exists among rich white men in the financial industry? It seems that some of them have integrated crime to the point where it is seen as a legitimate way to support yourself or your family. Perhaps some of these brown and black people should call up the prosecutor working on their cases to tell him to stop the investigation. You know, like Jamie Dimon did. Maybe then they wouldn't be stopped and frisked like rich white criminals are not stopped and frisked. They just need more money, connections and better lawyers.

      Like so much in America these days, it's as much about class as race. Bankers don't go to jail because of their wealth and status (and because they've successfully convinced everyone that prosecuting them would end civilization). They have done more damage to more people than some punk on the street will ever do. But we tut-tut to the brown and black people and scold them about their culture of criminality, while the biggest criminals wear three-piece suits and have lunch with the Commerce Committee chairman. Why is that?

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    2. Re:Re-educate about crime by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      I can tell you only know about black people from The Wire, so I'm going to disregard your ridiculously ignorant comments about "brown and black cultures". Crime culture is not a thing. That's like saying white people have a problem with glorifying crime because they love Scarface.

    3. Re:Re-educate about crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that none of us has standing in these financial industry crimes. Even if you are an account holder at an affected bank, as long as your money is safe you have not been wronged. Even if you did have standing, the President could choose to stop enforcing whatever law had been broken, rendering the crime a moot point.

    4. Re:Re-educate about crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because: They're Batman, that's why.

    5. Re:Re-educate about crime by thermowax · · Score: 1

      >> Can we talk about the culture of crime that exists among rich white men in the financial industry?

      Oh, shut the fuck up, you weak-minded twat. I'm beyond tired of hearing this useless analogy trotted out as though it's somehow compensatory. I'll tell you "Why is that?": Relatively speaking, I, and I suspect most people, really don't give that much of a shit about white-collar crime. If something happened that affected me personally somehow- and I don't mean in the greater "it costs all of us" sense, like insurance fraud- you bet I'd be pissed.

      But I wouldn't be dead. Or worse. Gunshot- or beating-induced paralysis is quite the bitch. I might wind up poor, but I'd still be around to play with my kids, run in the park, that kind of wonderful mundane nonsense.

      *That's* what people are concerned about. And *that's* the kind of violent crime perpetrated, vastly disproportionate to their numbers in society, by "brown and black people".

  42. Re:police are good by flopsquad · · Score: 1

    Good trolling effort, but a bit too obvious. Better luck next time.

    Yah wow, I mean if you're going to telegraph it, might as well go for trolling gold! Don't you have some unusually inflammatory opinions about Apple, Obama, copyrights, Edward Snowden, gamergate, race relations, SCO, systemd, climate change, and Israel?

    --
    Nothing posted to /. has ever been legal advice, including this.
  43. I agree with stop & frisk... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    ...mainly because the US African American community has major cultural issues with broken families and an habitual acceptance of criminality that not enough of them are trying to fix internally. HOWEVER:

    "...Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice...."

    Then "some law-enforcement experts" need to pull their head out of their collective asses and understand that everyone - including cops - knowing who has what rights is a GOOD THING, for everyone. Remember the whole "presumed innocent" thing? Stop and frisk is already pushing pretty far into 'unreasonable search' territory; to imply then that the cops are somehow entitled to even push it further if they can bully/trick people into accepting it is frankly bullshit.

    Police that act like it's a bad thing to tell kids what their rights are (and how to defend them reasonably and respectfully) during stop & frisk smell suspiciously like thugs with badges, and not police officers doing a difficult, dangerous, and high-stress task as constructively as possible.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:I agree with stop & frisk... by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Then surely you are for fixing these endemic issues of the US black community, as well as supporting stop & frisk as a temporary solution to ease the symptoms...

    2. Re:I agree with stop & frisk... by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      ...mainly because the US African American community has major cultural issues with broken families and an habitual acceptance of criminality that not enough of them are trying to fix internally. HOWEVER:...

      It doesn't really matter what comes after "however". You've pretty much stated your case with "I am for unconstitutional searches of black people because I believe that they are inherently criminals."

    3. Re:I agree with stop & frisk... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      It has nothing to do with race you jackass. The criminal acceptance behavior you attribute to race is attributable to economic status, as in white people at the same poverty level do the same god damned stuff. Economic status and chance for advancement is the decider of how people view the law. Someone that has nothing, and has knowledge that they will never have anything will view society as the problem and the police as enforcers of their economic slavery. This is the danger in class stratification and why ignoring all the poverty is a bad fucking idea. Trickle down economic theory is heavily responsible for this rather major attitude problem with law enforcement among the lowest economic class.

      But keep blaming black people you fucking racist.

  44. Yep, this is the way to go. by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Their first concern is to not get shot in the head. Teaching kids that they need to obey lawful orders and recognize unlawful ones is the right approach. If your rights are violated you deal with it later, not when a nervous person holding a gun is telling you what to do.

    This. Specially for inexperienced teenagers who, for whatever fucksake reasons (biological maturity, society, etc) might (will) lack the social, communication and cognitive skills for de-escalation and negotiation that adults (should/typically) have.

    Consent and litigate later, or know how to not consent without getting killed. OTH, if a 200+lbs person in a position of power wants to strangle a 100lbs handcuffed crying teenager on the back of his patrol car, there is nothing that kid can do.

    ^^^ And I say this because I witnessed it on a park right in front of my house. I was sitting on a bench in front of my house near a tree when a patrol car stopped there (some investigation going on, whatever.) The car parked, the officer, a gorilla of a man, got out of the driver's seat, went to the back and started chocking the shit out of this kid.

    He stopped when his partner nodded to him that there were people (me) watching. They took off, God knows where.

    I'm not making this shit up, and this was with my house in one of the supposedly nice, upper middle class neighborhoods in South Florida. Just imagine the type of crap that occurs in less affluent neighborhoods.

    1. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by Pablew+Nopl · · Score: 1

      that adults (should/typically) have.

      Sadly, most don't have those skills. And as for "should," everyone should have those skills.

    2. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Consent and litigate later, or know how to not consent without getting killed.

      You post is spot on, except it's comply and litigate later.

      Do not consent.

    3. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And did you report this?

    4. Re: Yep, this is the way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you absolutely should not consent. you should make it clear thAt you do not consent. if you consent, you have consented. it is not illegal for the police to ask for consent to something they do not have the right to compel, and if you do consent you will have no case.

      The cop is going to do what the cop is going to do, the trick is to not consent while also not resisting. Then you let the lawyers deal with it.

    5. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd have more luck submitting a bug report to a defunct open source project than submitting a report (and getting a positive outcome) regarding police brutality, much less from a single witness (unless they were recording the incident as well).

    6. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what were you doing while this kid was being beaten? Just sitting there watching? Better to not get involved?

      Or were you contacting a police dispatcher to report abusive police officers? Maybe the State Police?
      Did yo even testify when this kid's family sued the police department?

      Did you do ANYTHING?

      what kind of disgusting tripe are you pandering here? Just bow down to oppression and MAYBE they will be kind enough to give you your Rights back later??
      to hell with that!
      Do you think black people would have had even half of the freedoms they do today if certain people had just sat at the back of the bus and sued later? Or drank at the blacks-only drinking fountain and sued later?
      If you are not willing to stand up for your Rights, you *WILL* lose them. It has been demonstrated time and again throughout history. Hell, it's even happening right now.
      you do a great disservice to every military person who paid the ultimate sacrifice to try to protect your Rights.
      You just keep bowing your head...taking the crap these tyrants are dishing out. Maybe you'll be consoled by the fact that there ARE people who will stand up against this tyranny.

    7. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 200 lbs person is "a gorilla of a man" to you? 200 lbs is not that big - perhaps you were referring to a different attribute?
      >> "supposedly nice, upper middle class neighborhoods..."

      Yup.

    8. Re:Yep, this is the way to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 200 lbs person is "a gorilla of a man" to you? 200 lbs is not that big

      I would say so. A person who weighs 200 lbs would need to be 6'5" or over to not be considered overweight.

  45. Great point, but ..... by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Is this really a big factor? I'm just asking because the trend I've witnessed in recent years has been towards ensuring the cops live where they work. The last couple places I've lived, they had special tax credits or break for police officers so they could purchase homes at a discount in the community they worked in.

    I can see how police might need a little more time to learn a neighborhood, if they're getting transferred around from department to department -- or if their department is asked to cover a large area. But small communities with their own little police departments seem to be among the more corrupt and trouble-prone. (Ferguson is a very small community in St. Louis, MO, for example.)

    1. Re:Great point, but ..... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      It is a big factor.

      First, a clarification: They aren't talking about making small community police forces. They are talking about having the one central police force patrol with some consistency, so they get to know the community and build relationships. I'm imagining that officer Joe patrols Elm street every Monday, rather than seeing Elm street once a year.

      Here in Maryland, both of the candidates for Attorney General were fighting over who could address this problem with the police force better. They talked about how difficult it is to conduct an investigation in a Baltimore City neighborhood when even the people you are trying to help don't know you and don't trust you. Previously, the department was organized by specialty. So there is a homicide investigator, a fraud investigator, a drug investigator, etc. They covered those crimes regardless of geography. Now they are saying each investigator gets a district, regardless of the type of crime. So the community gets to see the same face over and over again. That investigator learns who they can go to, who to believe, etc. Patterns form.

      It's the realization that crime is about people and places not statistics.

    2. Re:Great point, but ..... by I+Read+Good · · Score: 1

      It's a big factor. Here is a piece from NPR covering a beat cop working in Skid Row. Skid Row is pretty much a worse case scenario for law enforcement. He's been patrolling the same neighborhood for almost 20 years. He's familiar with the community and they're familiar with him. It has made a huge impact on how the people and the police interact with one another. http://www.npr.org/2014/10/14/...

  46. Completely unrelated... by RingDev · · Score: 1

    I like your point, but the "Broken Window" theory is an false argument. The gist being that if you break a window, the glass maker must make a new pane of glass, the delivery man must carry the window, the carpenter must install the window, etc... and thus economic value is created by the breaking of the window.

    It is false because the economy has not created new value, instead significant effort is being spent on existing value. The opportunity cost here is that the same effort could have been spent on creating new value and causing economic growth.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Completely unrelated... by Elbows · · Score: 1

      The broken windows theory in policing is a different thing than the broken window fallacy in economics.

    2. Re: Completely unrelated... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, that's a different "broken window" theory commonly known as the broken window fallacy, that's Bastiat 19th century.

      Most famous proponent of this version of broken window is Rudolph Giuliani.

    3. Re:Completely unrelated... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

      You're conflating the Broken Windows Theory with the Broken Windows Fallacy.

      They are not at all the same thing. They are both also wrong.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    4. Re:Completely unrelated... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It is false because the economy has not created new value, instead significant effort is being spent on existing value.

      And the falsehood here is assuming the money would had been spent on creating new value, rather than on, say, financial instruments.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    5. Re:Completely unrelated... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      In fact, there are times where the broken window fallacy isn't a fallacy. WWII was the biggest window-breaking of modern times, and even in the US we spent a tremendous amount of labor and resources on things that, even if they didn't get broken, were basically consumer goods, and got out of the Depression.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:Completely unrelated... by RingDev · · Score: 1

      I am corrected. Thanks!

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  47. And the problem is? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police office

    That's the current state of affairs, so it would seem they are teaching exactly what they should be.

    On the bright side breaking the law is a good way to have contact with the police and hence one of those costs is to not break the law.

    On the less bright side, that means not making contact with the police to report crimes and wanted people, since it isn't worth the risk of contact with police: http://www.kgw.com/story/news/...

    And if someone needs medical attention, 911 is not the way to do so, especially if they they might have seizures or anything the police might interprete as not obeying their god like commands: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/l..., http://www.nhregister.com/gene..., http://fox59.com/2013/02/05/ep..., http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/l..., http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2...

    So hopefully you have the number of a medical service rather than the generic let's send the police anyway 911 call.

    And yes people lie, and some of those are probably people lying, but there have been enough cases to end in court with the one claiming they were having a seizure or similar winning.

    1. Re:And the problem is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a depressing set of links, mate. =(

  48. Re:police are good by Entropius · · Score: 1

    I know this advice, but I wound up not following it, and it turned out okay for me -- in one situation. I wish we could come around to a policing culture where every story could end like this one. Sadly, we don't, and in many places the police have made themselves out to be the enemy.

    ***

    I got hungry for a burrito one night at midnight in Tucson (a city of about 800,000; mixed white/Hispanic). Good thing, too, since there was a burrito shop three blocks down the road. I was reading an e-book on my netbook, so I grabbed my netbook and tucked it under my arm, and headed for the Taco Shop. Well, it was colder than I expected, so I started jogging down the road. It didn't occur to me, of course, that I looked suspicious, running down the street with a laptop under my arm.

    Well, four cops confront me in the parking lot of the Taco Shop, wanting to know what the deal was. They were professional, and didn't make any aggressive moves toward me, put a hand on weapons, or touch me, but made it plain that I wasn't free to leave. They asked where I lived and what I was doing, and I told them. I said "I guess that does look suspicious. But this is my laptop. Can I show you some documents on it with my name on them, and show you that they match the name on my driver's license?"

    The cop tells me to go ahead, so I do, and he says "Huh, guess it is your computer, then. Enjoy your burrito" and leaves along with the others.

    Thing is, this is exactly what you shouldn't do when stopped by police in many places, since as you say their goal (often) is to find people and put them in jail. I could have said nothing, been detained, called a lawyer, and wasted a whole bunch of my time and a whole bunch of theirs. But, thankfully, I was able to take a risk that the Tucson police were better than that and try to demonstrate my innocence on the spot, and it paid off.

    (Three of the cops, incidentally, were Hispanic; this wasn't a "white cops let the white guy go" situation. But there is far less racial animosity in Tucson than there is in places like Washington DC.)

  49. better yet... by jgerry · · Score: 1

    Or better yet, teach cops how to engage with citizens without being so aggressive. When a cop comes at you and starts out hostile, you're likely to feel defensive and hostile in return.

  50. Education by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

    It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs

    Well, at least they're learning something valuable.

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  51. How about teaching civility? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 0

    Teach kids to be polite and to keep their attitude in check. No, as a matter of fact, you AREN'T special. No, as a matter of fact, even if you are special, you still need to be humble and treat other people as you would have them treat you.

    1. Re:How about teaching civility? by sunking2 · · Score: 1

      You're confusing subservient with polite.

    2. Re:How about teaching civility? by TheBilgeRat · · Score: 1

      How about teaching the police to stand up against laws that are unconstitutional? How about teaching police not to reach for their guns when they see black kids? If you don't think there's a problem of police on black crime, then you have been missing the news for the last 200 some years.

    3. Re:How about teaching civility? by cryptizard · · Score: 1

      No. There is no law that says you have to be polite to people. It's a value that we encourage, as a society, but you are perfectly within your rights to be a raging asshole to everyone you meet. You don't NEED to be humble. But you do need to not be shot.

    4. Re:How about teaching civility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  52. Sounds like a good idea by wcrowe · · Score: 1

    The police ARE a fearful group to be avoided at all costs. We live in a police state. Or, at least, we live in a country where the police have been militarized to the point that they are dangerous to be around. These days, when they're sending in SWAT teams to collect overdue library books, even a middle-aged, law-abiding, white guy like me needs to be wary of the police.

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  53. It's an observation, not an argument by MikeRT · · Score: 1

    You seem incapable of understanding the difference between an argument for something and an observation. My observation is that NYC and South Africa are largely ungovernable without means that are either quasi or outright intrinsically immoral. You seem to just get pissed because I pointed out the larger issue which is that without tactics like stop and frisk, the NYPD couldn't do the things it has had to do to make NYC "work."

    Frankly, I couldn't care less if NYC collapsed under the weight of its own governance problems except insofar as many of its residents would flee to Northern Virginia where I live and try to recreate the same quasi-police state here.

    1. Re:It's an observation, not an argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The ugly truth about NYC is that...

      That makes it sounds like your opinion, not just an observation. And even if it was just an observation, observations are open for rebuttal too.

      You seem to just get pissed...

      Nothing in SourceFrog's post indicates he/she is "pissed." It's actually a calm, academic post.

      You seem incapable of understanding the difference...

      Unsubstantiated, ad-hominem. You made an insightful post that has been modded-up and contributes to a fascinating discussion. Don't sully it by devolving the discussion into attacks.

    2. Re:It's an observation, not an argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, I couldn't care less if NYC collapsed under the weight of its own governance problems except insofar as many of its residents would flee to Northern Virginia where I live and try to recreate the same quasi-police state here.

      A bigot that is entirely okay with dictatorial governance so long as it is against a "diverse" population such that those "diverse" people won't live in your back yard. What a fearful world without humanity your mind lives in.

      Feel free to replace the word diverse with whichever ethnic group you chose to hate and fear.

    3. Re:It's an observation, not an argument by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      MikeRT

      Are you MikeeUSA? If so, go away.

      If not (and I don't think you are, but you made me think), you're not right about NYC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

      It's essentially a microcosm of the US except with a few more Asians. 90% of the city is White+Black+Hispanic, which is essentially like the rest of the US. There are ethnic enclaves ... just like every other major city in the US.

      The only really unique thing you can really say about NYC is that it's huge. There's also that it simultaneously has a reputation for extreme rudeness and extreme politeness (unlike Paris, which is just rude). I'm sure some social scientists would love to speculate on why that is.

      So, no, New York isn't like the Soviet Union about to break up into a dozen little countries, any more than the US as a whole. Like almost every city, they've got their baseball teams (a really good one, in their case), city pride ("The Big Apple"), and civic identity.

      You want an example of a political entity that can't be held together except by brute force? Look at the island of Cyprus .. and the country of Cyprus ... and the country of the Turkish Republic of Northen Cyprus. Island populated by the descendants of Greece and the descendants of Troy? They gonna have some problems!

      And they did. And it's not like they didn't give it a good shot, either. They had a special setup with the office of the vice president constitutionally reserved for the Turkish minority, etc., etc. They really tried. Buuuut nope. Turkey has to intervene to stop them from ethnic cleansing 30% of their population.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    4. Re:It's an observation, not an argument by dcollins · · Score: 1

      What, pray tell, does stop-and-frisk "do to make NYC work", if anything? It practically never finds weapons or drugs. It's not even targeted at the cohort most likely to use drugs. It's just raw gamesmanship by the NYPD (look at our mighty stop numbers), against the usual part of the population who takes it on the chin because their poor, uneducated, and don't have the power to fight back (legally or politically). You might as well claim that slavery was a requirement "to make the South work".

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    5. Re:It's an observation, not an argument by Matheus · · Score: 1

      No sir it is you that lack understanding... To quote: "The ugly truth about NYC is that it would be ungovernable without a very large and powerful police force"

      That is you claiming not an observation but an absolute truth that this is the case. In your world view we require a police state of sorts to make NYC (and other places) workable. Whether you like it or not that is not an absolute truth and ergo an argument to be disputed by those who disagree with your point.

    6. Re:It's an observation, not an argument by msi · · Score: 1
      New York is directly comparable with London they are the worlds "first" and "second" cities both are very multi-cultural and have the widest possible spread of class and income.

      Whilst the Metropolitan police are not the most beloved organisation especially with the poor and the black they can police the city without "means that are either quasi or outright intrinsically immoral"

      London metro area pop 13 614 409 murders in 2012 89 Number of police 48,661 (31,400 police officers) NYC Metro area pop 19,950,000 murders 2012 419 Number of police 49,526 (34,450 police officers)

  54. Re:police are good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    WWB - Walking while black.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  55. Re:police are good by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Arrested. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  56. HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT?!?` by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hell, I'm a law-abiding 45 yr old "1%" convertible lexus driving male wasp in an affluent atlanta suburb and _I_ know that! my rule is: "nothing good can come from interacting w/a cop - the BEST case scenario is you break even (other than wasted time) and they go downhill quickly from there...". if I pick up one behind me I go out of my way to "shake" them (turn into parking lot for sec, stop for gas, etc) just to be safe.

    to be fair, the ones in my area tend to be a lot more professional/less attitude ridden but when people like me start thinking "better safe than sorry" this country has a big problem...

  57. Misunderstanding the situation by Sand_Man · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,"

    Of course they will 'come away with' that conclusion. The went IN having already concluded that, based on the evidence before them.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding the situation by PPH · · Score: 1

      Q: How many cops does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

      A: None. They just beat the room for being black.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  58. It's very simple... by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    ...people do it just to annoy you.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  59. My daddy taught me what not to do... by Supp0rtLinux · · Score: 1

    Granted I'm in the backasswards, hick part of the country, not NYC, but I was taught the appropriate response to the "this is how we're gonna do it, boy" scenario thanks to my father driving home drunk from the bars all the time. Thankfully I was smarter than him (or at least smart enough) to realize that this was a lesson best learned by watching how he responded and then doing the opposite. To this day I've never had an issue... I just willingly accept that as long as the popo are present I have no rights or any expectations of civil liberties. Once gone, I re-evaluate things and determine if its worth my time to complain to someone

  60. Don't show ID? Heh. by dorpus · · Score: 1

    I've witnessed people who got arrested BECAUSE they refused to show ID.

  61. Re:dizirehberi.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think I can improve on your post.

    For great justice, worthless copypasted spam and some in your face bestiality porn, get on over to dizirehberi.org .

    Save your thanks.

    In case you have more than a passing interest in social justice, get in touch with Ayhan Newsted. He'd love to hear from you:
    whois dizirehberi.org
    [Querying whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
    [whois.publicinterestregistry.net]
    Domain Name:DIZIREHBERI.ORG
    Domain ID: D174515091-LROR
    Creation Date: 2014-11-17T14:14:08Z
    Updated Date: 2014-11-17T14:53:07Z
    Registry Expiry Date: 2015-11-17T14:14:08Z
    Sponsoring Registrar:IHS Telekom, Inc. (R1705-LROR)
    Registrant ID:DI_24997257
    Registrant Name:Ayhan Newsted
    Registrant Organization:Ayhan Newsted
    Registrant Street: Beyoglu Istanbul
    Registrant City:Istanbul
    Registrant State/Province:Istanbul
    Registrant Postal Code:0034000
    Registrant Country:TR
    Registrant Phone:+90.5532342305

  62. Re:police are good by NotSanguine · · Score: 1

    This is about teaching kids how to get away with a crime and be disrespectful.

    The police are there to protect you, but unfortunately also to enforce laws that politicians write. If you don't like the laws then go after the politicians.

    This anti-police crusade is no different than rioting and burning down your own neighborhood. Wrong target, wrong method.

    So you're saying that exercising your constitutional rights against unconstitutional actions of the police makes you a criminal?

    I'm going to assume you're just uninformed, rather than a douchebag. Please prove me right. But I won't hold my breath.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  63. ...a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,"

    Then the education was accurate and effective. A+ for NYC schools. Now if they could get the reading and math scores up, they would be on their way.

  64. Their job is dangerous by sjbe · · Score: 1

    I was about to say the same thing, but from an American perspective. Why is it understandable?

    Because their job is genuinely dangerous unlike yours. Nobody calls the police to give them hugs and cookies. They get called when bad things are happening. Often it's no big deal but at other times their lives are genuinely in danger. People draw guns on police on a regular basis. Cops wear bullet proof vests for very good reasons. It is impossible to tell in advance whether the dispatch call they are on will be the one that results in them needing to draw their gun. You'd be a little tribal too if you weren't sure who you could trust.

    Understanding why they behave the way they do is not the same thing as condoning their behavior.

    Seriously, before anybody tries to defend them, answer me this, when was the last time you can think of that a cop actually prevented a crime. Not caught a criminal, but actually prevented a crime from happening.

    Their job is to enforce the laws. Not to prevent crime. That said it's easily demonstrable that police presence reduces incidence of crimes. There is plenty of data out there if you had bothered to look.

    1. Re:Their job is dangerous by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Because their job is genuinely dangerous unlike yours.

      Blah fucking blah. Taxi driving is more dangerous than policing. Should taxi drivers get to beat the shit out of people then take a paid vacation? No? Then neither should the police.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Their job is dangerous by Wookact · · Score: 1

      Most police deaths are caused by vehicle injuries, which would be resolved if they wore their flipping seat belts. Even with those injuries it is no where as dangerous as many jobs.

  65. Re:police are good by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    See, that is the problem with Miranda. What you say can be used against you. Why can it not be used for you? The police should not be there to try to put you in jail. If you are innocent, the evidence they collect should be allowed to be used to keep you out of jail. Right now the way it works is they collect evidence for and against, and the prosecutor will simply not bring up the evidence which exonerates you. They do have to share that with your lawyer, but it is up to your lawyer to bring up the evidence which exonerates you. Basically the prosecutors train of thought is, "This guy is probably innocent, but I can probably get him convicted if I run the case in such and such a fashion". That is completely the wrong attitude.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  66. They Are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs"

    That is exactly the message the students should come away with because they are. Couldn't have said it better myself.

  67. Trufax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All children are criminals who haven't had the opportunity yet.

    Meanwhile, in reality...

  68. American Police are fearful, and should be avoided by debrain · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

    This is an important lesson for American youth ... but don't take my word for it ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Avoid any police service that deviates substantially from Peelian principles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles):

    1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
    2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
    3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
    4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
    5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
    6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
    7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
    8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
    9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

  69. Why shouldn't the police be avoided in NYC? by bulled · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs"

    But is that the case for anyone that is not white and in NYC? Any place that determines it is okay for the police to stop and hassle a citizen because they differ from the majority in some way is a place where the police should be feared and avoided at all costs.

  70. Avoiding the police by spasm · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice

    That's probably because the police *are* a fearful group to be avoided at all costs..

  71. Re:fight it out in court-- Money? by doginthewoods · · Score: 1

    Ahem - fight it out with whose money? This is something that cops bank on when they stop people of lesser income. It costs money to fight back, and if you don't have it, you can't fight.

    --
    Republican leadership = Idiocracy
  72. I suggest showing your ID but decline any further by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I strongly suggest presenting your ID but always decline any further searches. ID - that is what it is for: Identification Document. In EU, not presenting up any valid ID upon officer's request is the main reason for a quick trip to nearby police station for identification purposes.

  73. Re:police are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, sounds like a great story for when people get busted having stolen a chromebook.

  74. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ruling "stop and frisk" constitutional is absurd enough, but it may also include anal probing if you appear to be 'clenching'.

    But hey, if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't have any problem with an invasive colonoscopy (and being billed for it).

    Maybe it should be called "stop and strip search on the highway", or how about "stop and sexual assault".

    Where's the outrage? How are the majority alright with this? The only conclusion I can come to is that America is an evil country and the police are the instrument of domestic evil.

  75. Too Late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FTA:

    "Eugene O’Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said the literature implies cops are “public enemy No. 1.”"

    Ferguson, NY Stop and Frisk, Contelli Pro, NSA, CIA, there have been time and time again circumstances where the law enforcement agencies have crossed the line with no punichment or recourse for doing so. the literature doesnt imply that cops are public enemy number one, instead it takes the world for what it is and realises the inherant bigotry in most power structures. the literature also shows kids what NOT to say to an officer that may lead down the path to another Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin.

  76. Don't need to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My summery I would believe to be quite accurate without even reading, obey the police even when they are wrong. Accept your fate and don't question if your rights are violated. Curl up in a ball and take it.

  77. What a bunch of hypocrits by MyNicknameSucks · · Score: 1

    Seriously, people. Looking at the comments here for the last couple of years, you can see the same people say, "NSA surveillance is bad because it violates my constitutional and civil rights. The government requires a warrant to gather information about me." The same people will say, "Suck it up, buttercup, because the cops are in the right when they stop and search you [for no reason other than your age and skin colour]."

  78. Fearful Group To Be Avoided At All Costs by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,"

    That's EXACTLY what the police are these days and if you claim otherwise you are either a pro-police and pro-police state shill or hopelessly naive about the current state law enforcement and Criminal Justice inAmerica that is more focused on creating criminals so they can imprison people and confiscate property than keeping people safe. I myself am a white guy in my early 40s and have had Criminal Justice delivered unto me. My crime? Stepping outside to my home after a few drinks to talk to a police officer regarding a public disturbance. I was immediately cuffed without cause, hauled off to jail and when I asked why I was arrested, I was choked, stomped on, pinned down by 4 officers and suffocated till I nearly passed out from asphyxiation. I am now facing criminal charges for "public intoxication" and "obstruction of justice". And have to spend several thousand in legal costs to defend myself in court. A very high price to pay for trying to be a good samaritan. So yes -- fear the police And for fucks sake, avoid them at all costs.

  79. Education versus racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had a class in high school called American Studies. They spent a day going over your rights if you were stopped by police, and what you should and should not do. And this was in a small town in Kentucky back in 1988 or 1989. They couched their phrases carefully but essentially told us things like If you get pulled over and have anything illegal in your possession, you might want to make sure that they are given to a passenger and that the passenger removes them from direct sight like sticking them under a shirt or something. Not exactly the same thing but close.

  80. This idea came from a police chief by Animats · · Score: 1

    Darryl Gates, former police chief of Los Angeles, once proposed that kids should be taught in school how to be arrested. Cops can't complain that it's being implemented.

  81. Which beautiful place in the USA was this done in? by lamer01 · · Score: 1

    Please tell so that we all know to avoid it.

  82. Bullshit by Rujiel · · Score: 1

    Black and mexican youths are treated as second-class citizens. After the fact of stop-and-frisk, and the reality of the school-to-prison pipeline--a phenomenon mainly occurring in schools full of blacks and mexicans--you'd need to be living under a rock to think white non-hispanic kids are given the same treatmemt.

  83. Really? by TBone · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

    Based on recent history, that sounds like an assumption grounded in reality.

    Maybe the police forces in the U.S. should start acting like the responsible adults in the room and not the kids with new toys, and the police forces that already do should be more vocal about abuses of power. Then maybe we'd still operating from the assumption that a cop that stops you is going to shoot first and ask questions later.

    --

    This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

  84. Mod parent up. by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    This is the 1st time I've heard of a public school teaching something practical in government. Most American's don't know what the 3 branches are, what the 4th estate is, or even bothered to vote. Not voting led to the arguments against it becoming stronger.

    Not volunteering for police is EXACTLY what the ACLU should be teaching kids before they find out the hard way that real world police only care about the statistics used to measure their job performance. They can't waste time doing real work because they get punished for having low performance stats; they have to give you tickets over stupid shit because otherwise management thinks they are sleeping in their squad cars. Plus YOU the public vote for officials who tout empty stats like arrest numbers going up and crime going down .... NYC gained nothing from stop and frisk, the lower crime rate was national and the higher arrests were for stupid shit. The higher abuse, murder, etc didn't harm politicians because everybody thinks "that isn't going to happen to me" and "the victims probably deserved it."

  85. Re:American Police are fearful, and should be avoi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real question for me is: How, in all of the posts and debates revolving around modern police and their uses of force, have I not heard about Peelian Principles?

    Maybe it's just me not paying attention (a possibility), but you can bet I'll be sharing this in the future.

  86. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: Toronto

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Toronto

  87. Re:police are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What you say can be used against you. Why can it not be used for you?

    That would create conflicts of interest, which is an even worse world to live in. Do you really want the cops deciding whether or not they want to put their efforts towards helping the accused instead of the prosecution? The whole country would be a good ole boy shitstain like Steubenville, OH.

  88. Obvious things are obvious? by Desirsar · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs"

    Wouldn't the most effective way to prevent that conclusion be to not be "a fearful group to be avoid at all costs"? Not every police department is that way. I'd go so far to say that most aren't. Even if you can make a somewhat logical claim that yours needs to be, you're already doing something wrong to get to that point.

  89. yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So long as the Thin Blue Line exists, police are "a fearful group to be avoided at all costs."

  90. Re:police are good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and anything you say or do can and will be used against you"

    Perhaps it would help to modify Miranda to say "and anything you say or do will ONLY be used against you". Police/prosecutors seem to happily cut and paste a suspects statements to suit their own needs. If you were a suspect in a crime at a bar that took place at 5:00 PM and you say that you were at the bar for lunch from Noon to 1:00PM what you'll hear at trial from the detectives/prosecutor is "he admitted that he was at the bar on the day of the crime".

  91. Fuck you, Eugene O'Donnell by jcr · · Score: 1

    The cops in NYC are a criminal gang that routinely violates citizens' civil rights. The fact that they're still doing this illegal "stop and frisk" bullshit after multiple court rulings against it, proves that they're not there to protect the public, they're just tax collectors and obedience enforcers.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  92. Re:Don't show ID? Heh. by jcr · · Score: 1

    If that was the only reason for the arrest, then you witnessed cops breaking the law.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  93. Keep blaming that victim! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My theory is, regardless of the corruption or lack thereof in our society, if you go out of your way to look sexy and not fuck every guy on command, you're simply more likely to run into the less pleasant elements in the police force and get raped.

    Keep blaming the victims, asshole.

    1. Re:Keep blaming that victim! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      You act like blame is a zero sum game. If you go into the Bronx as a 5'2 woman in a low-cut dress driving a Lexus, park it on the street with your windows down and some money on the seat, and go for a walk at 2am-- I can tell you that you will have a bad night.

      You can say "oh but thats blaming the victim". Whatever-- If I have a daughter and she gets old enough to drive, Im going to warn her not to do boneheaded things that will increase her risk to that level. You can either live in your fantasy land where women SHOULD be able to walk around the hood at 2am, or you can live in reality, understand that people will take advantage of you, and minimize your risk.

      Im also not 100% clear what you're arguing for here. I was simply saying that, while standing up for the rights of the accused may be a good thing, you're far better off if you simply dont commit crimes that will place you in a position of needing to invoke those rights. Im really not sure what part of that is blaming the victim.

  94. lesson learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell.

    It sounds like the students are learning the right lesson.

  95. How not to get killed by the cops by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    Step 1: Don't attack the cops.
    Step 2: There is no step 2.

    1. Re:How not to get killed by the cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that simple, and it never will be no matter how much you want it to.

  96. Notice how LEOs assume they are criminals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish the phrase would be more like "if you have nothing to hide, they have no reason to look." Presumption of innocence, and all that.

  97. Warrentless search, on me by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    Cops swarm the area arresting many, while there were problems with a stolen tablet (My Motorola Xoom) and my neglect to change the routers password (I thought the tablet long gone) I was working on my car all day got concerned and called 911 twice no answer (ever feel unwanted :) ).

    Across the highway I saw lights flashing (cops telling me "I was covered I guess) I saw my out door light was out, fixed it (as was turning dark) at which time the area was swarming with cops, (while a set up I'm sure) they talked to a person who was said to of been behind me all day (a shooter situation ,me the target (kid you not) they arrested the neighbors with bails just to be troublesome.

    I go into my house (not arrested nor talked to) three swat dudes are searching my place, as I mentioned not one word was said not even what they were looking for (my hard drives which I pulled earlier in the day due to a neighbor situation-if they had asked I'd of tossed the drives at them to get them out of there.

    No warrant, nothing, and nobody has had a problem with it, friends or any legal advisory. A paper explaining somethings was to of been left behind which I found (thus knowing the bails) but I put it up for later reading - they took it the next day (I guess I have an open door policy I was unaware of).

    No conclusions on my part to impart just what happened to me just a few months ago (close to my last log in), other than yes the cops can do what they wish (FWIW I'm white, blond hair and blue eyes, I don't see it as a racist situation).

    This one swat dude was so computer blind he didn't find anything even if he was looking right at it, he set up a monitor very small and unseen video camera to see where I hid the drives (apparently talking could of compromise his identity) as soon as they left I pulled them out I had nothing to hide - the drives were imaged and case found to be of no importance (go figure).

    I'm sure swat destroyed my mother board, and took out a few drives I'm still checking (do notice my last log in date, while a new mother board fixed my computer. I'm typing this from the library.

    How bad were they? I had a very important drive (I felt) it was a 300 Gig USB drive, this "professional" picked it up to get access to the hard drives from the same case, Imaged them then put the USB drive back untouched. If it wasn't a hard drive he had no clue.

    BTW nothing of any concern was found on my drives as some claimed (The tablet thieves) and any legal problems on my part over before they even started. One persons pr0n is another panic. I don't like gay pr0n but have yet turned anybody in over it.

    With the tablet they dropped the router (not blocking anything), One was so proud of himself he left his name as well as editing my old post (which I keep for reference) so I came across as some clown. Him I plan on tracking down.

    -Do note I have swat over someones word, while the FBI would of been following these type of files and notified the cops if they came into the area (my source is an older article on /.)

    Yet when I saw my WiFi tablet on my router list I called 911 as due to it's limited range I knew where it was and damn close, 911 never showed or responded in any way.

    Lots of info but where do you stop with a situation like I went through, I also made no claims or complaints I wouldn't know where to start.

    Even if your aware of what to do, the cops follow their own laws and will arrest a teen if not given the proper treatment or the information they require, they can learn but can't practice it without problems which could very well mean a nigh in jail.

  98. Uh... by fafalone · · Score: 1

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,"

    That's because THEY ARE. Unless you're a mid to upper class white person who's been the victim of a violent crime, you have exactly zero to gain from interacting with the police, and tons to lose since to them, you're the enemy. And if they're the ones approaching you? No one but ultra-sheltered white people who've never had a run in the police before are stupid enough to not fear a situation like that, and they'll only make that mistake once. That's who I was... I thought because I wasn't breaking the law it would be ok to talk to them. Worst fuckup of my life.

  99. You don't say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs,"

    Now why would anyone ever get THAT idea?

  100. How Can I Help You Officer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It's unlikely that a high school student would come away with any other conclusion than the police are a fearful group to be avoided at all costs," says Eugene O'Donnell, a former police officer and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

    Let me take a chance and conclude that Mr. O'Donnell is a white male, and who has not actually seen the lecture that will be provided to the students. Yet he can comment on what the kids will come away with form this program. Something else tells me he may have been the same jerk using a 'billy-club" on the kid who had any thought of talking back to him while he was a cop; and by talking back..."How can I help you Officer"

  101. This is from the NY Post.. Caution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is as reported by the NY Post. Facts are likely missing. Read page 6 for fun or the Onion for better news.

    Signed- New Yorker

  102. Standard advice by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Didn't your parents tell you to not be a dumbass if you are approached by Police? I mean this isn't hard. I'm white, and everyone I know was told this as well. You get smart, you may get a Mag flashlight across the head or worse. I know a guy that joked he had weed in his classic 1960s Mustang. They took it apart in a 7-eleven parking lot. No weed, no other contraband. He had to put it back together himself.

    Act like a dumbass, suffer dumbass consequences. Nothing to do with you smart you are or your color.

  103. Why apartheid "worked", why the Shah "worked", ... by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    Why apartheid "worked", why the Shah "worked", why Christianity "worked".

    It is really too bad when science comes down on the side of the iron fist, but the studies show over and over that justice requires peace, and peace requires trust, and diversity reduces the social capital necessary to assure trust.

    On the other hand, who wants to live under ISIL or similar diversity busting regimes? But one of the first prerequisites for a peaceful society appears to be a shared culture first, at least with respect to how people treat each other. It would be nice if we could use clothing to mark culture, so that when I see someone wearing a hoodie I could KNOW that indicated a peace-monger, but it just is not so, any more than someone wearing a sash with a swastika is identifying themselves as a keeper of the word of gawd.

    The question has to be, how to get social capital higher and the science appears to suggest homogeneity. I don't like that answer, any more than I liked it when simulations showed "tit-for-tat" was the preferred strategy in cooperative games. I don't like that I cannot just flap my arms and fly either, but at some level all of these findings are our realities.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  104. Re:police are good by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

    They do have to share that with your lawyer, but it is up to your lawyer to bring up the evidence which exonerates you.

    My understanding is that what you say cannot be used for you, as it would be hearsay, and is thus inadmissible in court.

    IANAL.

    --
    Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  105. There's a simpler way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When confronted by cops, drop down right where you are and act like you're having a seizure or heart attack. If there are other people around this will call attention. Cops may like to taser people who resist but nobody in their right mind would hit anyone who is visibly and seriously ill and in distress in front of that many witnesses. One should also remember to dress properly, look like a member of the Ruling Elite. Loose your hoods, wear businessmen attire. Cops don't antagonize nobility. It pays to move in groups, if one is confronted and does the seizure act the others should scream out in anguish and call attention by wailing "OH NO HE'S DYING! THEY'RE KILLING HIM". Remember: look and act like one of the Elite, when confronted do not escalate but feign a life-threatening condition, have attention called upon you. No cop is going to attack an apparently wealthy family kid with a medical condition in front of witnesses.