|
meat sweats posted:That's not what this term means. Stripping away the rule of law and having police arbitrarily decide who does and doesn't go to prison is what makes a police state. Guess what you're advocating for. Incorrect. We don't decide who goes or does not go to prison. We simple decide who has to go to court. The jury and judge decides that. Also, prison is for felonies, and we do not have digressions there. only for minor crimes that do not happen in front of us, and traffic violations. We have to investigate all crimes reported to us, especially felonies. We then put the evidence together and charge someone with the crime based on the evidence. The court system then decides if they get found guilty.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Pretty much. I don't think your version of legal accelerationism is a particularly good idea for reform though. justsharkbait posted:That is another level of policing. Judges are 100% in charge of their local legal system. So if a judge thinks too many speeding tickets are being written in an area, or he does not think the speed limit is fair, they will just throw out all those tickets and tell us to not bother writing them. They can't stop us from writing the ticket, but what is the point if all them get thrown out. So if the court system got flooded because the police started acting with consistency, do you think it would be valid to assume that the judges would begin throwing out en masse tickets for things that they decide are bad or stupid laws? Do you feel as though this discretion should lie with the police officers or with the judges? Grem posted:So far a goon has complained that a cop did not use discretion, and a goon has complained that a cop would use any discretion. This is the debate forum, where we talk about our different ideas. Welcome! What is your opinion on this fine topic, contributing poster?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
Grem posted:So far a goon has complained that a cop did not use discretion, and a goon has complained that a cop would use any discretion. I think most of us just want consistency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Incorrect. We don't decide who goes or does not go to prison. We simple decide who has to go to court. The jury and judge decides that. The BLS says in 2007, about 1 in 4 cops were minorities. It's well documented that in the United States, being a minority means you're more likely to face police harassment and end up in jail or prison. Do you think there might be any ties between these two pieces of data that could potentially be based on giving too much discretion to the police about who to charge?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:So if the court system got flooded because the police started acting with consistency, do you think it would be valid to assume that the judges would begin throwing out en masse tickets for things that they decide are bad or stupid laws? litany of gulps posted:Do you feel as though this discretion should lie with the police officers or with the judges?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:So if the court system got flooded because the police started acting with consistency, do you think it would be valid to assume that the judges would begin throwing out en masse tickets for things that they decide are bad or stupid laws? Well. I have two degrees in criminal justice so i have studied the entire history of policing, legal systems, court system, worldwide policing, etc, etc. and there are problems at all levels. I think that in the current system, the good far outweighs the bad but the bad tends to get the focus (because it is bad, and i am not denying that). Judges have even more power then the police and if you dump it all on them it would not be good or go how you think. Our entire legal system was designed to work from the bottom up. Line cops are not 'the low level' of the system. They are the foundation and the starting point of the entire legal system in this country. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Well decide on what consistency you want.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:The BLS says in 2007, about 1 in 4 cops were minorities. Yes. But weeding out racism and the use of bad digression does not mean the system does not work. it means that bad people got in and did not get weeded out. However, minority cops can be just as bad as white cops in the racism area. So , yes there major problems with who gets arrested and blamed but that is a cultural thing and is not how the system is supposed to work. It just needs to be weeded out as newer, younger cops move in. See, judges, police officers, etc are very long term. So you can have 20 year cops and 30 year judges. So if 20 year cops and judges are racist then no change will happen there. You just have to get college educated people in policing and it will change. I have already seen it start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Judges already do this as has been mentioned more than once in this thread. Although relying on a judge to be the first person to exercise discretion would turn what is already a quagmire into a total disaster. Even if an offense gets dismissed it's still costing the accused a reasonably large amount of time and money to deal with it. How long do you think it would take to ram through judicial reforms once some wealthy white people start getting caught up in the big waste of time and money that poor people have to deal with? Selective enforcement is a massive roadblock to reform, in my eyes. The whole lethal force thing is an entirely different can of worms. I think many of the police currently out there are not qualified to make judgments regarding the use of lethal force, and arming them as heavily as we do is a mistake that many other countries do not make. justsharkbait posted:Well. I have two degrees in criminal justice so i have studied the entire history of policing, legal systems, court system, worldwide policing, etc, etc. and there are problems at all levels. So the foundation and the starting point is not in fact the legislators? The judges (in the eyes of a cop) have poor judgment? The police make the laws and decide how to interpret and enforce them?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:How long do you think it would take to ram through judicial reforms once some wealthy white people start getting caught up in the big waste of time and money that poor people have to deal with? Selective enforcement is a massive roadblock to reform, in my eyes. Legislators make the laws, yes. But they do not start the legal process on someone. That is what i was referencing. A person having to deal with the legal system does not start with the legislators. it starts with the cops. EDIT: just noticed the part of judges. I don't think they have poor judgement. but you cannot expect 1 or 2 judges to have to deal with thousands of extra cases. Just to even get the case to the judge takes weeks. if we had no digression the system would be overrun. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Yes. But weeding out racism and the use of bad digression does not mean the system does not work. it means that bad people got in and did not get weeded out. This seems like a broad shift in American culture in general, with young people becoming more tolerant of racial and diversity issues. The solution to racism in law enforcement isn't standardizing enforcement, but getting rid of the bad apples by waiting for them to retire and get replaced with younger people?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Legislators make the laws, yes. But they do not start the legal process on someone. That is what i was referencing. A person having to deal with the legal system does not start with the legislators. it starts with the cops. So the legislators make the laws, but the police decide who the laws apply to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Incorrect. We don't decide who goes or does not go to prison. We simple decide who has to go to court. The jury and judge decides that. Honestly the way you put it, about only writing people up if they've lied to you, comes of as a simple case of power tripping on your part. There are other officers that would choose to selectively enforce rules in a different manner, say, only writing someone up if their skin color is black instead of if they were dishonest. This would also be an abuse of power and is likewise unacceptable behavior for an organization that is supposed to be beyond reproach. The degree of separation between you and the judge makes you no less responsible for initiating enforcement in the first place, so this is not an excuse and in no way alleviates the issue. Additionally, that your organization allows this power is also unacceptable, and is part of the reason why police are criticized and why this thread exists in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:So the foundation and the starting point is not in fact the legislators? The judges (in the eyes of a cop) have poor judgment? The police make the laws and decide how to interpret and enforce them? litany of gulps posted:So the legislators make the laws, but the police decide who the laws apply to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:This seems like a broad shift in American culture in general, with young people becoming more tolerant of racial and diversity issues. The solution to racism in law enforcement isn't standardizing enforcement, but getting rid of the bad apples by waiting for them to retire and get replaced with younger people? Yes, i would agree to that. I personally think the system works but bad people are in it. litany of gulps posted:So the legislators make the laws, but the police decide who the laws apply to. So i forgot some stuff that may help let me try. There are some things that happen. Someone says a crime has been committed. They want the offender prosecuted. Police have to investigate and try to solve the crime. Sometimes people just want their stuff back, so we solve the crime, and mediate the resolution and everyone goes away. We could just charge the offender anyway, but if the victim does not want to prosecute it gets thrown out of court and everyone's time is wasted and the system clogged for no reason. We see a crime. Say two people fighting in a parking lot. Without digression we would have to arrest both and take to jail regardless of what happened because fighting in public is illegal. Instead we mediate, do a report, and ask both sides if they want to press charges and inform then if they do both go to jail b/c that it is the law. Sometimes they say yes, and most times they leave. We are here to ensure order, not arrest every violation we see. THEN there is traffic law, the thing that causes the most confusion and the most hate for police. The state is the victim of traffic laws, and we are the state's representative, so just like a victim does, we decide how to handle each incident. Plain and simple. Traffic law, however strictly deals you playing nice in the pond and does not have much to do with criminal procedure and such. It is not a crime, it is more like talking in class or not having your hall pass. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Mercury_Storm posted:Honestly the way you put it, about only writing people up if they've lied to you, comes of as a simple case of power tripping on your part. There are other officers that would choose to selectively enforce rules in a different manner, say, only writing someone up if their skin color is black instead of if they were dishonest. This would also be an abuse of power and is likewise unacceptable behavior for an organization that is supposed to be beyond reproach. The degree of separation between you and the judge makes you no less responsible for initiating enforcement in the first place, so this is not an excuse and in no way alleviates the issue. Additionally, that your organization allows this power is also unacceptable, and is part of the reason why police are criticized and why this thread exists in the first place. Racism is illegal, so they can't write someone a ticket just because they are black/white/etc. Some people still do, yes, and if they get caught they are in trouble. However, it is hard to get past the fact that a violation still occurred. It does not matter why the officer gave the ticket, there was still a violation and whatever reason the officer used is on the officer. Also, that was only for weed because the courts don't really care anymore. So if i smelled weed, i would tell them "i smell weed. i have cause to search your car now, and i will. So where is it". We can even decide when to take to jail. I can take someone to jail for any traffic offense. So every time a ticket is written that is someone who by law cld be arrested and made to go post a bond (i.e. go to jail). Again, the is something the courts don't like so we don't do it, but that does not mean we can't. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:The BLS says in 2007, about 1 in 4 cops were minorities. As an example, the LAPD is only 37% white (due to significant efforts hiring people of color) and yet still has very significant problems with racial profiling. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99227648/Racial-Profiling-the-LAPD Hiring people of color to be cops will make little difference if they've internalized the same racist notions white police hold, and work within the same racist institutional systems that white police do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Also, that was only for weed because the courts don't really care anymore. So if i smelled weed, i would tell them "i smell weed. i have cause to search your car now, and i will. So where is it". Like you said, the courts don't really care so why even search?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
wixard posted:He provided an example of a judge where he works effectively forcing police to stop writing paraphernalia tickets, I think it goes both ways. The judge forcing police to stop writing bad tickets is exactly how things are supposed to be. The police should not be the ones who have the power to determine what a bad ticket is, but rather simply identifying who is breaking the law and writing tickets based on that. This isn't the case though. The police have, all over the country, sort of taken on themselves the responsibility for deciding which laws are enforced and on who. This seems like a serious break in the legal system. The judges are the people who are supposed to do this, and in many cases judges are elected officials. People chosen by their communities to represent their collective will in the legal system. The police are not elected. The police are not chosen to decide who to enforce the laws against. Obviously in reality elected officials are often incompetent, but at least it has the veneer of democracy and provides a shadow of the checks and balances that our entire governmental system is built around. justsharkbait posted:We are here to ensure order, not arrest every violation we see. This is the heart of the problem, though. Order, for many police, does not mean enforcing the laws fairly. If the laws were consistently enforced rather than broadly interpreted by the police, we would see a decline in the potential for bad cops to be able to abuse the system. Look, modern management theory (in business and education) states that the best way to control human behavior is to set clear expectations and consistently enforce those expectations. This is impossible under our current system. Each police officer gets enough discretion to enforce whatever he wants, so a department has trouble providing a coherent message to the public that they're supposed to be policing. Providing consistency may clog the court system. Who has a problem with that? If it was bad enough, it would be fixed. Maybe this takes the form of cutting out some of the non-violent crimes, or maybe it just leads to an expansion of the judicial system. Maybe it limps along as a broken system indefinitely, but at least the discretion has been placed back in the hands of the people that it should be in. If the biggest problem this creates for police is too much paperwork and having to decide which jaywalker to chase and ticket, I guess I would consider that reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
wixard posted:That's still a lovely game to play. You're choosing to be harder on people who attempt to exercise their rights to privacy, which is something I think most citizens don't do enough to protect. I understand you have the right to search the car at that point, but they also have a right not to incriminate themselves. If you hold it against people when they make you actually search, it's pretty easy to see that as fighting against their right to privacy and self-incrimination. It is a catch 22. If i smell weed and don't search and they get pulled over in the next jurisdiction, or they have an accident etc. It comes back on me for not taking any enforcement action that would have prevented the problem down the road. So not doing anything is worse then doing something, even if it is for the wrong reasons. Also, there is little right to privacy in car, and i have a legal right search if i smell something i know to be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Officer disgression is a basis of many procedures and policies and i wld argue policing itself. Law enforcement is not a black and white affair because people and circumstances and emotions are involved. I would not want to live in a ridged society that enforces the letter if the law always. it is not needed, and overbearing. Nor do i think we should be taken before a judge for ever single offense. That is just mind-blowing levels of inefficient. I don't even like traffic law much because it is just annoying to deal with. But we need traffic law apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:It is a catch 22. If i smell weed and don't search and they get pulled over in the next jurisdiction, or they have an accident etc. It comes back on me for not taking any enforcement action that would have prevented the problem down the road. So not doing anything is worse then doing something, even if it is for the wrong reasons. Whether you search or not, if you agree with the courts that it's not a big deal and you'll send people on their way if they give it up when you ask them, why don't you send them on their way when you search and find it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
expecting police to enforce every violation they see is stupid. Do you want police to be busy arresting a jaywalker or would you rather they be available in case your house gets broken into?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:expecting police to enforce every violation they see is stupid. Do you want police to be busy arresting a jaywalker or would you rather they be available in case your house gets broken into? Then why do I keep seeing videos of police roughing people up for Jay walking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
I want to thank justsharkbait, Rent-A-Cop, and SrgMagnum for actually trying to hold an honest discussion, by the way. It can be hard to find any sort of legitimate exchange of ideas in some of these threads. If there were more police willing to speak on these issues and fewer like Grem who just want to poo poo things up with failed witty one liners, the police would likely be a more respectable institution.justsharkbait posted:Officer disgression is a basis of many procedures and policies and i wld argue policing itself. Do you think it would be possible to have a society where the laws are enforced to the letter as well as possible, but the laws are such that it is not overbearing? Do you think it would require much to change to achieve this in our society?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
wixard posted:I know you have the right to search, I'm mostly talking about your discretion in writing tickets. I don't know, because i get evaluated on what i do so if i don't ever write any weed tickets i get a bad eval, no raises, etc etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
It's spelled discretion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:
The taxpayers, who end up footing the bill for paying me overtime to show up to court on a ticket that I knew full well would be thrown out. The taxpayers that notice that their streets have a lot less police around because of budget cut backs to pay for the over time. The voter who doesn't want to see an 18 year old education major's whole life ruined because they couldn't hold their bladder any more in a public place and went in to an alley. Lots of people have a problem with police over enforcing laws, not just the people thinking the system is messed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Grem posted:The taxpayers, who end up footing the bill for paying me overtime to show up to court on a ticket that I knew full well would be thrown out. The taxpayers that notice that their streets have a lot less police around because of budget cut backs to pay for the over time. The voter who doesn't want to see an 18 year old education major's whole life ruined because they couldn't hold their bladder any more in a public place and went in to an alley. Lots of people have a problem with police over enforcing laws, not just the people thinking the system is messed up. I'm hardly concerned with the bill. We basically throw away a giant portion of our nation's tax money on crap anyway, paying cops to attend court dates on tickets they write does not seem unreasonable if it can lead to improved outcomes with regard to justice. Reforming the system is going to take money, and if spending money is a dealbreaker then nothing is ever going to change. The 18 year old in your example would ideally be judged by a judge, not some beat cop who thinks he is the law. Dislike of over enforcement goes hand in hand with selective enforcement, which leads to distrust of the police. litany of gulps fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I'm hardly concerned with the bill. We basically throw away a giant portion of our nation's tax money on crap anyway, paying cops to attend court dates on tickets they write hardly seems unreasonable if it can lead to improved outcomes with regard to justice. Reforming the system is going to take money, and if spending money is a dealbreaker then nothing is ever going to change. The bill is local, not federal or state so your local county would start using up large amounts of money and have to cut back on a bunch of other stuff (or run out of money). Also, if you have a situation where our discretion is taken away, what makes you think the judges will use any? There are judges who believe everyone is guilty if they make through the system enough to be standing in front of them just like there are judges who don't like particular laws. Taking away discretion instead of teaching cops to use it the right way is a bad, bad thing and would cause more hate for police, overwork the system. not to mention the number of officers you would need to be able to cover that. Do you even realize how many crimes actually happen versus how many go to court? We would be tied up on stupid stuff all day everyday and cause a lot of unhappy people. It will not work, and would disrupt everything long, long before anything could be done to adapt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:I'm hardly concerned with the bill. We basically throw away a giant portion of our nation's tax money on crap anyway, paying cops to attend court dates on tickets they write hardly seems unreasonable if it can lead to improved outcomes with regard to justice. Reforming the system is going to take money, and if spending money is a dealbreaker then nothing is ever going to change. You aren't, but money talks to enough people in this country that "pay cops a poo poo ton of overtime" (not to mention court reporters, clerks, etc.) isn't feasible. I could use a bump in the taxes I pay, but I'd rather it be for education. People will vote for the mayor or governor that keeps their taxes down. Second, cops don't judge anyone, they just decide to continue (or escalate, whichever you choose), the legal process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:I don't know, because i get evaluated on what i do so if i don't ever write any weed tickets i get a bad eval, no raises, etc etc. This eval process you mention seems like a good candidate for reform, because if the courts aren't that interested in enforcing something, why would a cop feel pressure from his administration to enforce it? litany of gulps posted:The 18 year old in your example would ideally be judged by a judge, not some beat cop who thinks he is the law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
wixard posted:Maybe it would be more fair to send every 3rd person you bust, whether they give themselves up or not? Our judgement is never out of the picture because we have to do police reports. Most judges will judge based on police report. I have been in court and heard legitimate excuses and though "i wld not write for that given that circumstance". The judge did not care, and found them guilty because the reality is most judges are "law is law" because it is faster and easier to move cases through. Also, it is true every 3rd wld be better, and many cops do use that system or something like it. It is not optimal to use something like lying to write a ticket or not, but it is what i used on a few occasions. So it is what it is. Also, the admin does not care because they get budget money based on how "busy" their officers were and tickets, arrests, and drug (weed) tickets is what shows productivity. They want hard numbers they can show, and the only thing we do that does that is tickets and arrests. Everything else is just percentage stats that don't matter b/c the local government does not get more money to use if they decrease crime. The state gives them money based on tickets and drug busts. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:It will not work, and would disrupt everything long, long before anything could be done to adapt. The idea is basically accelerationism, as Rent-A-Cop mentioned earlier. Push the system into highlighting the worst aspects so that they get fixed. It would be disruptive, yes. Many judges are scum, yes. They're often more accountable to the public (as elected officials) than the police, however. I know it would be ridiculous, but that's sort of the point. How do you trigger adaptation without forcing a confrontation or breaking point of some kind? Grem posted:You aren't, but money talks to enough people in this country that "pay cops a poo poo ton of overtime" (not to mention court reporters, clerks, etc.) isn't feasible. I could use a bump in the taxes I pay, but I'd rather it be for education. People will vote for the mayor or governor that keeps their taxes down. Second, cops don't judge anyone, they just decide to continue (or escalate, whichever you choose), the legal process. All true, although I take issue with the last bit. If you control access to the legal system by determining who is forced into and who isn't, you've basically judged them. wixard posted:I'm inclined to believe the judge in any minor infraction will largely base their decision on the testimony and report of the cop, so is their judgment really out of the picture? This is fine. The police voice should be in the process, but it shouldn't be the main voice in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
i would agree that the system does need reform, and could even agree that police discretion could be modified. I don't agree that it would need to be taken away because i don't know of any way to have a system built on that where it would work. Also, we cannot be everywhere at once, so if you happen to be the one we pull over or get caught then it sucks to be you. If we were forced to take action every time it still would not make us be everywhere at the same time, and i don't think it would be any more fair then it is now. Because we are active out and patrolling people see us. If they knew that we had to take action for everything we saw that would add ridiculous amounts of legitimate fear into people. It would also kill community policing and make the cop culture even more us or them then it is now. We would be directly at odds instead of indirectly. We would be seen as soldiers and enforcers of the governments will. That is not cool. Addition: again, i am not saying that cops do not abuse power now but i don't see that as a fault with the system but because for years those are the type of people who wanted to be cops. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Policing was never looked at as a profession until fairly recently. It was not something people wanted to do. There is a change happening where it is becoming a professional career to go into. This causes a lot of conflict with the culture and the advent of videos everywhere the public gets to see every part of that struggle. So the biggest thing that needs to be done is get the old-way people out and put in educated, professional officers who will use the authority the right way. There will still be issues because people are not perfect, but it will be taken care of a lot better and the public perception will improve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:The idea is basically accelerationism, as Rent-A-Cop mentioned earlier. Push the system into highlighting the worst aspects so that they get fixed. It would be disruptive, yes. Many judges are scum, yes. They're often more accountable to the public (as elected officials) than the police, however. I know it would be ridiculous, but that's sort of the point. How do you trigger adaptation without forcing a confrontation or breaking point of some kind?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:But how many people are you willing to throw under the bus to catalyze the change you want? How many people sent to jail on garbage charges that should never see the inside of a court, how many crimes unsolved because the police were busy imploding the justice system, how many tax dollars flushed down the drain just because you hope that when the whole thing collapses the people who built it in the first place rebuild something better? Will it be any worse than right now? How long will the current system survive and how many people are thrown under this existing bus? How many sent to jail on garbage charges? Personally, I'm way too white to get caught up in any problems either way. If you ask some of the people whose lives have been destroyed in the war on drugs or by corrupt police, you'd likely get some strong opinions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
litany of gulps posted:This is fine. The police voice should be in the process, but it shouldn't be the main voice in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
wixard posted:That's still vulnerable to the same biases though. The rich white guy who spits and argues about his rights for 10 minutes could be described as cooperative and the poor black teenager who shook his head once and said, "This is bullshit" could be described as angry and insubordinate. I understand what you're getting at overall, but I'm not convinced the lovely parts of our current system wouldn't just find a way into the new one. We might as well experiment with oversight before we trash the whole idea of cops thinking on their feet, because we're going to need it for the judges when we have robot cops anyway. I don't think that is a system problem. It is a problem with biased, racists cops. For me, i don't care either way as long as they are not fighting me. So white guy can rant in back of car on way to jail and black teen can say its bullshit on the way to jail. Neither are relevant to why they are being arrested so i don't know why it would be put in a report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 23:51
|
|