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."
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."
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.
... teaching the cops how not to alienate the people?
Some law-enforcement experts say the NYCLU is going beyond civics lessons and doling out criminal-defense advice.
Which is apparently necessary.
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.
Just in one word. sad.
bickerdyke
We could send them through something called "training" before we let them loose on the streets. Where can I collect my Nobel Prize?
bickerdyke
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 ;)
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.
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
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]
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.
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);
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.
Good trolling effort, but a bit too obvious. Better luck next time.
"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
"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.
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.'
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.]
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!
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.
The plural of curriculum is curricula .
It is Latin.
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.
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.)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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"
er me that much.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
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.
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).
And finished it in the subject line.
Which is incredibly annoying but is nothing like the other way round.
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
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
...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
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
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.
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
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.)
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?
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.
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
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!
"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.
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.)
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.
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)
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
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
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.
WWB - Walking while black.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Arrested. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You're confusing subservient with polite.
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
"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.
...people do it just to annoy you.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
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)
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
I've witnessed people who got arrested BECAUSE they refused to show ID.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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..
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
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).
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.
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.
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]."
"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.
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.
Please tell so that we all know to avoid it.
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.
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
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?
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."
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
"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.
So long as the Thin Blue Line exists, police are "a fearful group to be avoided at all costs."
I'm not interested in conforming to your ideal of masculinity.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Start by disarming the pigs.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
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."
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."
Step 1: Don't attack the cops.
Step 2: There is no step 2.
New wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia. So far. Oh, and Iraq 3.
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.
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.
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.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
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.)
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>> 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".