Support NeoGAF

[zoukka]

Good god, there really is a defense force for everything on gaf.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a minority living in America. With all the shit in the news it must feel terrifying to be a black person walking down the street.

Not commenting on the OP with this, but it must be terrifying to be a cop in a country where every idiot is allowed to carry a firearm.

 

[Smiles and Cries]

wow at this shit right there that attitude deserves some serious backlash

 

[J10]

Not commenting on the OP with this, but it must be terrifying to be a cop in a country where every idiot is allowed to carry a firearm.

It's terrifying to be a person. Cops have jobs that give them body armor and the means to defend themselves if need be. I ain't got shit to defend myself from a cop though.

 

[Siegcram]

Not commenting on the OP with this, but it must be terrifying to be a cop in a country where every idiot is allowed to carry a firearm.

Well, they usually have more and bigger guns

 

[msv]

It's terrifying to be a person. Cops have jobs that give them body armor and the means to defend themselves if need be. I ain't got shit to defend myself from a cop though.

Also, I don't see what the difference would be for a civilian. I would think people with guns, crazy enough to use them, would be more inclined to shoot a civilian than a cop. Can't really shoot a cop without consequences. If anything, cops should be safer from being shot than a civilian...

 

[demon]

Civilians aren't infallible either though. You seem to have an unrealistic attitude about civilians.

The issue here is cops having all the power in interactions between themselves and civilians and zero accountability for their actions. That is not the case for civilians so their fallibility is not relevant.

 

[onadesertedisland]

There was no good reason to give this attitude a pulpit. This kind of policing should be shamed into oblivion.

There is no reason to have anyone we give the privilege of power and authority as a police officer believe, think, speak, or act in this manner.

I think we need to have yearly aptitude testing for officers, akin to public school testing. Rid the force of the bullies and power trippers.

 

[kitch9]

The issue here is cops having all the power in interactions between themselves and civilians and zero accountability for their actions. That is not the case for civilians so their fallibility is not relevant.

Thats an issue for the organisation that is supposed to hold them to account though surely?The UK has the IPCC for that stuff, does the US have nothing similar or some Federal Bureau for that? Like it or not, the police pretty much do have all the power in interactions with civilians, they need to have to be able to do their job.

There was no good reason to give this attitude a pulpit. This kind of policing should be shamed into oblivion.

There is no reason to have anyone we give the privilege of power and authority as a police officer believe, think, speak, or act in this manner.

I think we need to have yearly aptitude testing for officers, akin to public school testing. Rid the force of the bullies and power trippers.

Lets say you have a crazy dude trying to kick your front door in, saying that he was going to kill you how would you want the police to react? Shout at him from afar with a megaphone asking him if he's ok and would he like a cup of tea or subduing the guy on the spot?

Lets say the same crazy guy goes crazy at the police, how would you expect them to react?

 

[demon]

Lets say you have a crazy dude trying to kick your front door in, saying that he was going to kill you how would you want the police to react? Shout at him from afar with a megaphone asking him if he's ok and would he like a cup of tea or subduing the guy on the spot?

Lets say the same crazy guy goes crazy at the police, how would you expect them to react?

Way to change the subject. Do you notice a common thread through all of these stories being discussed? They don't involve a "crazy dude" threatening to kill people. That's the fucking point.

 

[Two Words]

Well, they usually have more and bigger guns

The "fuck the police" graffiti on the mailbox really makes that pic perfect.

 

[onadesertedisland]

Lets say you have a crazy dude trying to kick your front door in, saying that he was going to kill you how would you want the police to react? Shout at him from afar with a megaphone asking him if he's ok and would he like a cup of tea or subduing the guy on the spot?

Lets say the same crazy guy goes crazy at the police, how would you expect them to react?

Perhaps I am wrong, but you are talking about a totally different scenario than the original article is about. The officer says that during interactions with him that he will not tolerate any deviance to his absolute power and authority. Any challenge will result in you getting hurt by the officer.

Now this becomes a civil rights issue. If you allow the police to abuse your civil rights, you have none. The police will infringe upon your rights. They aren't there to give you tips on what they can and cannot legally do. They just do. They're humans, they're an organized, violent, club authorized by the state to do as they see fit to enforce the law.

Now you bring up an unrelated hypothetical situation where a person is already committing a crime and ask me how the police should respond? Pardon me, but are you saying this just to get a rise or trolling? I can't believe you don't see the issue of a police officer insinuating that we allow their kind to trample upon civilians and pray that the justice system sorts out their accidental misdeeds?

 

[.GqueB.]

Good god, there really is a defense force for everything on gaf.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to be a minority living in America. With all the shit in the news it must feel terrifying to be a black person walking down the street.

#notallminorities

;p

 

[TxdoHawk]

Here is the bottom line: if you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you.

Oh, okay! Except...

And you don’t have to submit to an illegal stop or search.

That sure doesn't sound like "doing what I tell you", but I'm sure cops generally respect the rights of people to refuse searches, and there definitely aren't thousands of recorded instances showing otherwise. Yup.

 

[Siegcram]

Lets say you have a crazy dude trying to kick your front door in, saying that he was going to kill you how would you want the police to react? Shout at him from afar with a megaphone asking him if he's ok and would he like a cup of tea or subduing the guy on the spot?

Lets say the same crazy guy goes crazy at the police, how would you expect them to react?

Keep moving those goalposts ...

The "fuck the police" graffiti on the mailbox really makes that pic perfect.

I'd be lying if I'd say that didn't play into me posting it

Spoiler

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Well, he's not wrong. Police are so out of control in this country you'd be foolish to expect that your rights will actually matter when you're encountering an officer, especially if you're a minority. Just reminder that recently an unarmed civilian was murdered in broad daylight through the use of an illegal chokehold, with full video evidence of the incident and the aftermath, and the man responsible isn't in jail awaiting trial, Hell, half of his comrades that were helping him and refused to step in as the man was saying that he couldn't breath aren't even being investigated.

There is a culture in the law enforcement institution that enables abuse of power and apathy toward the safety of citizens, and this officer's blatant disregard for the rights of others is clearly a result of that.

 

[soundahfekz]

Well, he's not wrong. Police are so out of control in this country you'd be foolish to expect that your rights will actually matter when you're encountering an officer, especially if you're a minority. Just reminder that recently an unarmed civilian was murdered in broad daylight through the use of an illegal chokehold, with full video evidence of the incident and the aftermath, and the man responsible isn't in jail awaiting trial, Hell, half of his comrades that were helping him and refused to step in as the man was saying that he couldn't breath aren't even being investigated.

There is a culture in the law enforcement institution that enables abuse of power and apathy toward the safety of citizens, and this officer's blatant disregard for the rights of others is clearly a result of that.

bing fuckin' o

 

[Malvolio]

When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

 

[Dmented]

Don't breath, especially when I have a choke hold on you.

Well, he's not wrong. Police are so out of control in this country you'd be foolish to expect that your rights will actually matter when you're encountering an officer, especially if you're a minority. Just reminder that recently an unarmed civilian was murdered in broad daylight through the use of an illegal chokehold, with full video evidence of the incident and the aftermath, and the man responsible isn't in jail awaiting trial, Hell, half of his comrades that were helping him and refused to step in as the man was saying that he couldn't breath aren't even being investigated.

There is a culture in the law enforcement institution that enables abuse of power and apathy toward the safety of citizens, and this officer's blatant disregard for the rights of others is clearly a result of that.

Yep. The police really are a fucking gang. Their us-vs-them mentality is sickening.

 

[soundahfekz]

Don't breath, especially when I have a choke hold on you.

by all means, suppress your body's neural instinct to fight for life while choking to death, or else you'll really be choked out to death -- EVEN MORE

 

[Sulik2]

This op-ed is fairly reasonable except for the bolded part. How on earth does he think its reasonable to use force for someone who is just screaming at him? Insane.

 

[Dmented]

by all means, suppress your body's neural instinct to fight for life while choking to death, or else you'll really be choked out to death -- EVEN MORE

Exactly. "STOP RESISTING!" says the officer to the man being choked to death fighting for his life.

This op-ed is fairly reasonable except for the bolded part. How on earth does he think its reasonable to use force for someone who is just screaming at him? Insane.

How can a cop use any type of force when his life clearly is not in any danger? The only reason for this is because they know they can get away with it and be the ultimate bullies.

 

[demon]

This op-ed is fairly reasonable except for the bolded part. How on earth does he think its reasonable to use force for someone who is just screaming at him? Insane.

Police have developed a warped sense of what their duty is and what they're legally entitled to be able to do.

This is why the op-ed and its defense force are bullshit- it's enabling. There needs to be massive reform in this country as to how the police behave and how they are held accountable. And the police may find that if they start behaving as protectors and servers and not as a cross between the mafia and a paramilitary, citizens may start acting less "aggressive" and fearful around them.

 

[dan2026]

What I want to know is do we have a people here on NeoGAF who either are cops or work with the police in some capacity who can make some sense of all of this?

A lot of the cops in America seem outright sociopathic, bordering on the psychotic.

Don't walk towards me aggressively or I will beat you, shoot you or electocute you....
These are the words of a lunatic!

 

[Htown]

Lets say you have a crazy dude trying to kick your front door in, saying that he was going to kill you how would you want the police to react? Shout at him from afar with a megaphone asking him if he's ok and would he like a cup of tea or subduing the guy on the spot?

Lets say the same crazy guy goes crazy at the police, how would you expect them to react?

So the argument here is, the police might save you one day, so you just have to put up with the fact that they can also arrest/assault/kill you for no reason without repercussions?

 

[soundahfekz]

Police have developed a warped sense of what their duty is and what they're legally entitled to be able to do.

This is why the op-ed and its defense force are bullshit- it's enabling. There needs to be massive reform in this country as to how the police behave and how they are held accountable. And the police may find that if they start behaving as protectors and servers and not a cross between the mafia and a paramilitary, citizens may start acting less "aggressive" and fearful around them.

they're all,

"well don't be a shithead and do exactly what the officer says"

until they do exactly what the officer says and still get abused because the officer had a bad day, or he there was something particular about you he didn't like.

Cop abuse defense force people are extremely sheltered. Objectively.

 

[Dmented]

I really wonder how many police now are former Afghanistan/Iraq war vets. Did they just transfer their above the law mentalities from the people in those countries to the people in this one? Are police even doing psych exams anymore?

And if they do still do psych exams, do they even matter? There really needs to be an investigation in this.

 

[Htown]

I really wonder how many police now are former Afghanistan/Iraq war vets. Did they just transfer their above the law mentalities from the people in those countries to the people in this one? Are police even doing psych exams anymore?

And if they do still do psych exams still, do they even matter? There really needs to be an investigation in this.

the funny thing is, if you look at Ferguson, veterans will generally tell you that the militarized cops in that situation are doing it all wrong, that you never point a gun at someone you're not about to shoot for starters.

 

[Dmented]

the funny thing is, if you look at Ferguson, veterans will generally tell you that the militarized cops in that situation are doing it all wrong, that you never point a gun at someone you're not about to shoot for starters.

Maybe they feel more relaxed due to not being under threat of being blown up? Whereas in those countries even driving down the street can get you killed or maimed from an IED.

It just really feels like these are mentally unstable people with nothing better to do.

 

[Uncle Rupee]

Well, they usually have more and bigger guns

The militarization of the US police force is getting out of hand. I mean, look at these guys. I bet they get off dressing up in this gear.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Police have developed a warped sense of what their duty is and what they're legally entitled to be able to do.

This is why the op-ed and its defense force are bullshit- it's enabling. There needs to be massive reform in this country as to how the police behave and how they are held accountable. And the police may find that if they start behaving as protectors and servers and not as a cross between the mafia and a paramilitary, citizens may start acting less "aggressive" and fearful around them.

This scene from The Wire illustrates your point beautifully

I really wonder how many police now are former Afghanistan/Iraq war vets. Did they just transfer their above the law mentalities from the people in those countries to the people in this one? Are police even doing psych exams anymore?

And if they do still do psych exams, do they even matter? There really needs to be an investigation in this.

This will probably surprise you:
https://storify.com/AthertonKD/vete...esm=sfy.co_hpXF&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=

 

[Faiz]

I was with him through a large portion of the article. The title and bolded parts completely kill it though.

Yeah being a cop is one of the hardest jobs in the world. I wouldn't do it for anything. Unfortunately about eighty percent of the cops I've encountered "in the field" would fall squarely under bully cops, and if you, sir, think that a physical response is appropriate for verbal sparring, well fucking TAG you're it.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

"You don't have to say anything, but this can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Eh? I'm no expert but I don't think that's how it goes.

Isn't it "You don't have to say anything, but this but anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

The act of saying nothing can't be used as evidence of guilt.

 

[genjiZERO]

No wonder do few people have respect for cops.

 

[Darksol]

Batallions of riot police
with rubber bullet kisses
baton courtesy
service with a smile

Beyond the staples center you can see America
with its tired poor avenging disgrace
peaceful loving youth against the brutality
of plastic existence

Pushing little children
with their fully automatics
they like to push the weak around

 

[Mike M]

Eh? I'm no expert but I don't think that's how it goes.

Isn't it "You don't have to say anything, but this but anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

The act of saying nothing can't be used as evidence of guilt.

Actually in recent and remarkably awful ruling about a man being convicted at least in part on "guilty silence", the SCOTUS ruled that the 5th must be explicitly invoked.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Actually in recent and remarkably awful ruling about a man being convicted at least in part on "guilty silence", the SCOTUS ruled that the 5th must be explicitly invoked.

That's ridiculous. Surely, if one has a constitutional right to silence...one has a constitutional right to silence. Hopefully that will get overturned, and I sincerely hope there is no equivalent ruling in the UK (which, after all, was the territory under discussion).

 

[KingGondo]

Batallions of riot police
with rubber bullet kisses
baton courtesy
service with a smile

Beyond the staples center you can see America
with its tired poor avenging disgrace
peaceful loving youth against the brutality
of plastic existence

Pushing little children
with their fully automatics
they like to push the weak around

We really need a new SOAD album. Like, right now.

 

[TheExodu5]

I'm not sure why people consider this ridiculous or offensive.

Police have the authority to use force. You shouldn't provoke a conflict. If you believe your rights are being violated, you should channel your anger appropriately afterwards and not escalate things.

I completely agree that police officers should be mandated to wear body cameras. This would provide evidence in case a complaint needs to be lodged against a certain officer.

 

[jstripes]

He could have worded the article a bit better.

 

[Schweinehund]

That isn't the problem though.

 

[Tertullian]

Actually in recent and remarkably awful ruling about a man being convicted at least in part on "guilty silence", the SCOTUS ruled that the 5th must be explicitly invoked.

I knew about Salinas and how moronic the main opinion was. But I didn't realize that Thomas and Scalia filed a concurring opinion arguing that juries should always be allowed to take your silence as evidence of guilt, even if you explicitly invoke the 5th amendment. I mean, WTF?

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, concurring in the judgment.

We granted certiorari to decide whether the Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination prohibits a prosecutor from using a defendant's pre-custodial silence as evidence of his guilt. The plurality avoids reaching that question and instead concludes that Salinas' Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege. Ante, at 3. I think there is a simpler way to resolve this case. In my view, Salinas' claim would fail even if he had invoked the privilege because the prosecutor's comments regarding his precustodial silence did not compel him to give self-incriminating testimony.

In Griffin v. California, 380 U. S. 609 (1965), this Court held that the Fifth Amendment prohibits a prosecutor or judge from commenting on a defendant's failure to testify. Id., at 614. The Court reasoned that such comments, and any adverse inferences drawn from them, are a "penalty" imposed on the defendant's exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege. Ibid. Salinas argues that we should extend Griffin's no-adverse-[***9] inference rule to a defendant's silence during a precustodial interview. I have previously explained that the Court's decision in Griffin "lacks foundation in the Constitution's text, history, or logic" and should not be extended. See Mitchell v. United States, 526 U. S. 314, 341 (1999) (dissenting opinion). I adhere to that view today.

Griffin is impossible to square with the text of the Fifth Amendment, which provides that "[n]o person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." A defendant is not "compelled . . . to be a witness against himself" simply because a jury has been told that it may draw an adverse inference from his silence. See Mitchell, supra, at 331 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) ("[T]he threat of an adverse inference does not `compel' anyone to testify. . . . Indeed, I imagine that in most instances, a guilty defendant would choose to remain silent despite the adverse inference, on the theory that it would do him less damage than his cross-examined testimony"); Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U. S. 288, 306 (1981) (Powell, J., concurring) ("[N]othing in the [Self-Incrimination] Clause requires that jurors not draw logical inferences when a defendant chooses not to explain incriminating circumstances").

Nor does the history of the Fifth Amendment support Griffin. At the time of the founding, English and American courts strongly encouraged defendants to give unsworn statements and drew adverse inferences when they failed to do so. See Mitchell, supra, at 332 ([**390] SCALIA, J., dissenting); Alschuler, A Peculiar Privilege in Historical Perspective, in The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination 204 (R. Hemholz et al. eds. 1997). Given Griffin's indefensible foundation, I would not extend it to a defendant's silence during a precustodial interview. I agree with the plurality that Salinas' Fifth[*2185] Amendment claim fails and, therefore, concur in the judgment.

 

[J-Rzez]

Not commenting on the OP with this, but it must be terrifying to be a cop in a country where every idiot is allowed to carry a firearm.

More terrified of the trash that weren't allowed to possess a firearm by law having a firearm that was stolen or smuggled into the country than people who were legally capable of possession, despite them being idiots, lol.

What I want to know is do we have a people here on NeoGAF who either are cops or work with the police in some capacity who can make some sense of all of this?

A lot of the cops in America seem outright sociopathic, bordering on the psychotic.

Don't walk towards me aggressively or I will beat you, shoot you or electocute you....
These are the words of a lunatic!

It's simple really. An officer doesn't want to get into a scuffle, and considering they confronted you for a reason, you're on heightened alert. If I suspected you of something, I don't want you to be moving in on me. I don't want to be potentially overpowered, taken to the ground, risking serious bodily injury or death, losing my gun or gear to someone who may use it against me. If someone's being aggressive, and then start moving towards you rapidly, they're probably already within 20-25' and more than capable of getting to me before I could protect myself fully. And anyone who has the nerve, or out of their mind to approach you while you state for them not to, you think they're going to be given the benefit of the doubt?

People fight with officers more than you'd think. Officers are killed more often than you think in the US.
www.officerdown.com

 

[JCizzle]

I read the entire article, and I feel like the OP bolded sections meant to upset folks. The entire article seems reasonably balanced to me. He is pretty fair about police abuse, and even says he supports all cops wearing cams to record behavior. Nothing seems like it is getting brushed under the rug.

This. He raised a lot of valid points in addition to the controversial ones.

 

[Saint Gregory]

What I want to know is do we have a people here on NeoGAF who either are cops or work with the police in some capacity who can make some sense of all of this?

A lot of the cops in America seem outright sociopathic, bordering on the psychotic.

Don't walk towards me aggressively or I will beat you, shoot you or electocute you....
These are the words of a lunatic!

There needs to be a law passed that all police officers in the country undergo mandatory psych evaluations and polygraphs prior to being allowed on a force. Most federal law enforcement officers are required to undergo that kind of screening and how often do you hear stories like the ones dominating the media now in connection to federal law enforcement?

 

[kmag]

Eh? I'm no expert but I don't think that's how it goes.

Isn't it "You don't have to say anything, but this but anything you do say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

The act of saying nothing can't be used as evidence of guilt.

In the US that's correct but not in the UK, but not as the 'only' evidence of guilt. The English version of the Miranda right, is "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Adverse inference can be assigned by jury if the defendant refuses to speak either to the police or in his trial, or if he refuses to speak to the police at the time of his arrest and then speaks in court. However, adverse inference alone in the absence of other evidence is insufficient for a conviction.

I know you're talking about the US here, but you yourself are UK based so I thought you might find the distinction interesting.

 

[jamesinclair]

I wonder how this fills into the "do what we say and youll be ok" narrative and the "let the justice system work things out"

2012:
-Cops pull over National Guardsmen for cutting them off accidentally
-Cops react with road rage
-Ambush car with guns drawn
-Tell driver to put hands up
-Shoot him dead before he can do so

2014:
-No criminal charges
-Fellow cops upset that cop MIGHT face internal discipline

Articles:

2012

A New York police detective shot and killed an unarmed man, whose hands, a witness said, were on the steering wheel of his Honda, after he had been pulled over early Thursday for cutting off two police trucks on the Grand Central Parkway in Queens, the authorities said.

A passenger in Mr. Polanco’s car, Diane Deferrari, said in a phone interview Thursday night that just before pulling the car over, officers appeared irate that Mr. Polanco had cut them off. She said that one of the officers — but not Detective Hamdy — stuck up his middle finger and was screaming obscenities from one of the moving police trucks.

“As soon as we stopped — they were rushing the car,” Ms. Deferrari said. “It was like an army.”

She said a group of officers swarmed the car, yelling for the three people in Mr. Polanco’s car to put their hands up. Mr. Polanco, whose hands were still on the steering wheel, had no time to comply, Ms. Deferrari said. At that instant, a shot rang out, and Mr. Polanco gasped for air, she said.

Officers then dragged Mr. Polanco from the car and onto the highway, where traffic was snarled, as early-morning commuters slowed to look, she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/n...iver-on-a-parkway-in-queens.html?ref=nyregion

2014 follow up

The NYPD detective who shot and killed unarmed National Guardsman Noel Polanco during a car stop has been hit with a departmental charge in connection with the death, DNAinfo New York has learned.

Detective Hassan Hamdy, 40, was charged late Thursday with a single count: “failure to employ proper tactics that caused a civilian’s death,” according to sources.

There was no explanation what the proper tactics should have been, the sources said. If found guilty, the charge could lead to Hamdy's dismissal from the NYPD.

A Queens grand jury declined to indict Hamdy, a 15-year veteran and former U.S. Marine, of any criminal wrongdoing last year.

Hamdy told the grand jury he feared Polanco was reaching for a weapon. He said he fired in self defense and the grand jury declined to indict him.

The cherry on top

The NYPD's decision to file charges stunned Hamdy's colleagues.

“The detective acted in good faith and was not indicted and I don’t know what he could have done differently once the car stop was made,” one official said.

"These officers did not violate any department guidelines," the source insisted.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...l-guardsman-noel-polanco-hit-with-nypd-charge

WAIT THERE ARE MORE CHERRIES

The unarmed Army National Guardsman who was shot and killed by cops during a car stop on the Grand Central Parkway dreamed of becoming a cop after he left the military, his devastated mom said Friday.

“He wanted to become a cop," she said as she choked back tears. "He wanted to go and be active [in the military] and after he came back out, he wanted that as a career.

Polanco also agreed to give a ride to Vanessa Rodriguez, an off-duty cop who he knew from his apartment complex in Lefrak City.

http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...led-by-nypd-queens-wanted-become-cop-mom-says

OMG theres more

The off-duty officer who was riding with Polanco in his 2012 Honda Fit, Rodriguez, has been on modified duty — meaning that she was stripped of her gun and badge — for allegedly stealing a sweater from an H&M store in Queens.

Bad apples, etc.

 

[BlackJace]

What if I have my hands up

 

[QuicheFontaine]

In the US that's correct but not in the UK, but not as the 'only' evidence of guilt. The English version of the Miranda right, is "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

Adverse inference can be assigned by jury if the defendant refuses to speak either to the police or in his trial, or if he refuses to speak to the police at the time of his arrest and then speaks in court. However, adverse inference alone in the absence of other evidence is insufficient for a conviction.

I know you're talking about the US here, but you yourself are UK based so I thought you might find the distinction interesting.

I do find it interesting, and thanks for sharing! It can never be a bad thing to know one's rights, and frankly all my knowledge in this area is from various films, Life on Mars, and a few episodes of The Bill.

It sounds like the UK position is a reasonable middle ground - if you're really not guilty, you can say nothing and you should go free, however it would be in your best interest to answer questions honestly especially if there's other bits of evidence which could be misinterpreted. I'm pretty happy with that.

 

[KingGondo]

I'm not sure why people consider this ridiculous or offensive.

Police have the authority to use force. You shouldn't provoke a conflict. If you believe your rights are being violated, you should channel your anger appropriately afterwards and not escalate things.

A police officer shouldn't have the right to use physical force no matter what a citizen says.

They have the weight and authority of the state behind them and they should be held to a higher standard in accordance with their increased power and training.

Your post is a clear example of blame the victim mentality. We have rights as citizens, and what are the police good for if they don't respect our rights?

I read the entire article, and I feel like the OP bolded sections meant to upset folks.

"The article was extremely reasonable, except for the batshit insane authoritarian parts! Why's everyone so upset?"

 

[demon]

Police have the authority to use force. You shouldn't provoke a conflict. If you believe your rights are being violated, you should channel your anger appropriately afterwards and not escalate things.

The problem is not only do police have the authority to use force but there's a lack of accountability that allows them to abuse it, and when a victim of the police "channels their anger appropriately" the police end up investigating themselves, covering each other and often times nothing happens.

This cop's op-ed basically boils down to "let us do our jobs the way we want and if there's a problem let it run its course and everything will sort itself out in the end". Unfortunately, that is false. It addresses neither the problem of police violating citizens' civil rights in the first place nor the lack of accountability and proper channels for complaints, investigation and justice. He's asking people not to mess with the status quo when the status quo is what's fucked up.