I really hate to see blind hatred for the police on HN. It's a tough goddamn job, people, made all the more so by political pressure to improve statistics. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, police are forced to focus on serious crimes and solvable crimes and avoid minor and unsolvable crimes. Nobody wants it to work that way, but departments are hammered when they bring down crime stats.
This story is pretty outrageous, but I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice. This could EASILY have led to a shootout. I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt than insist "police are never there to help you."
Blind hatred for police seems to stem from experience. My father said once (after I had a particularly horrible, and unfair besting, by the police) that I had no respect for the police because I had never been in a situation where I had seen heroism, or been helped. The police have never stopped a robber from burgling my house, or stopped a violent crime from happening to me or anyone I know.
The point is, that anecdotally, the police have never appeared to be a positive force around me, except intangibly. They only seem to focus on things I myself, and many of my peers, consider acceptable victimless crimes. They focus on padding revenue by stopping speeding violations, and petty drug offenses.
Largely, police appear to regularly abuse their authority, ignore relevant data, and serve an agenda I am diametrically opposed to. Obviously, this isn't a scientific study, but I think it encapsulates the hatred for police.
Also, there are many instances on youtube and the news, of them either covering for fellow officers, or ignoring basic laws, like speeding, cell-phone use ore petty drugs. They need to wear cameras for objective scrutiny rather than be allowed to BE the law.
EDIT: I should say that of course, there are police officers who work hard, are incorruptible and are genuine upstanding citizens who enforce laws and are just. The simple fact is that a percentage of bad actors can disrupt the flow enough to severely damage an institution if given significant power. See the banking industry for an analogy of this. I do not mean to discount all police, and many do positive things in society.
I should say that of course, there are police officers
who work hard, are incorruptible and are genuine
upstanding citizens who enforce laws and are just.
And those police officers that are incorruptible and genuine upstanding citizens don't last long or succeed in the police officer career because the system not only isn't set up to reward those officers, it is actively antagonistic against such officers [0].
TBH, the only thing that could possible change things is to apply competition in police work. I'd love to see municipalities maintain two police forces and fund them according to how effective they are. Make them compete and they will improve or go out of business.
By comparison, have you ever had a really positive experience with the dentist? Like cops, they're there to solve painful problems that cause very unhappy memories. Anything that compels you to visit the dentist (or the police to visit you) is not going to be associated with positive forces.
It's a tough job to recruit for, since so many people hate you:
1) Minorities hate you, since an overwhelming proportion of criminals emerge from our ranks and successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors.
2) Liberals hate you because rappers do, and also everyone knows cops love to frame black people for crimes nobody committed, and if they were committed it was probably by a cis-male white patriarchy.
3) Conservatives hate you, because you're a public employee and an agent of the gubmint that wants to seize everyone's guns and force gay sex on God-fearing Americans.
Unsurprisingly, it's tough to recruit for the job. Plus, a huge number of cops need to go undercover and are thereby recruiting from cultures that don't share wealthier standards of etiquette. And even cops that don't come from rough backgrounds are forced to constantly interact with awful people who understand nothing but violence and rage. Mother Teresa would adopt thuggish behavior after five minutes on the force.
This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities. Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops? When you aren't faced with hatred and violence all day, it's easier to be chill at traffic stops.
By comparison, have you ever had a really positive experience with the dentist?
Not the OP, but yes. All the time, in fact. Then there's also the crucial difference that going to a dentist is a voluntary exchange, whereas being stopped and frisked by police is an unsolicited act of aggression no matter how you put it.
...successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors
Hardly. Locking up families and neighbors is the exact opposite of crime prevention. It's treating the aftermath. Crime prevention should be analogous to preventative medicine: minimizing the possibility of it occurring to begin with.
Police by definition are reactionary agents. They don't have the competence or the will to do anything other than handle aftermaths and create intimidation in a dubiously effective attempt to scare off bad guys.
This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities.
Pareto principle: 20% of people do 80% of the work, or in this case make most of the difference. It's also the reason why "Not all -ists are like that" arguments don't work: they fail to realize that minorities in an in-group can still be highly influential and destructive.
Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops?
They aren't typically covered in international media. You don't see any bad Serbian cops too often, either. Do they not exist?
"Hardly. Locking up families and neighbors is the exact opposite of crime prevention. It's treating the aftermath. Crime prevention should be analogous to preventative medicine: minimizing the possibility of it occurring to begin with. Police by definition are reactionary agents. They don't have the competence or the will to do anything other than handle aftermaths and create intimidation in a dubiously effective attempt to scare off bad guys."
So... in your opinion, there's no value in removing criminals from the streets because locking them up "is the exact opposite of crime prevention." There is no such thing as a repeat criminal, and the fact that a small number of criminals commit a disproportionate number of crimes is false.
In fact, black and Latino neighborhoods are enriched by the activities of violent felons. Their presence inspires children to study and ensures the safety of women young and old.
I would be very interested to visit your city and see this wonderland.
Reactions to a detailed first person account are "blind"? What, pray tell, is your standard of acceptable sources for a debate?
> I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice.
1. The victim of theft did not "enforce vigilante justice" even when the police refused to help him.
2. The victim of theft did not propose enforcing vigilante justice at any point in the process. All of his suggestions involved letting the police do their job while he assisted from a distance.
What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like you're accusing this guy of doing something he didn't do in order to avoid acknowledging that there is a problem.
> This could EASILY have led to a shootout.
Half of a policeman's duties could lead to shootouts. Should police everywhere avoid confronting criminals because such confrontations could lead to a shootout? No -- that would be ridiculous. Deciding that you aren't going to enforce petty theft laws because the cost/benefit is off is effectively equivalent to making petty theft legal. Even if this petty theft isn't important, you surely must acknowledge the importance of discouraging petty theft in general and the unsuitability of the "eh, not worth it" attitude for achieving that goal. The need for enforcement follows.
> I'd rather give [the police] the benefit of the doubt
It's very easy to pretend there isn't a problem when it doesn't affect you.
Sorry, but you're either deliberately or negligently misinterpreting my post.
The cops ordered the author to stop pursuing the thieves, for fear of a shootout. They were not themselves afraid of shooting the thieves. The author seems to be quite correct in all his actions, and his anger is appropriate. The cops should have pursued his case, and their failure to do so is wrong.
However, scan this thread for idiotic kneejerk reactions to the very existence of police. It may be fashionable to despise cops, but it's pretty damn stupid to hate the very thin blue line between you and truly awful people.
Villainizing the profession is seems to be an emotional outlet for white guilt and class resentment. All most cops want from their jobs is a peaceful world where criminals don't run riot through decent people.
Seattle PD failed to do their jobs in this case, and should step up enforcement of possible car break-ins -- but then the next HN story will be that cops are racist because they arrested felons for having car theft tools. Cops can't win.
Villainizing the profession is seems to be an emotional outlet for white guilt and class resentment.
How in the hell? A lot of arguments against police come from libertarian perspectives: ones that reject such ideas grounded in identity politics to begin with. Right-wing perspectives, in other words.
All most cops want from their jobs is a peaceful world where criminals don't run riot through decent people.
> Seattle PD failed to do their jobs in this case, and should step up enforcement of possible car break-ins -- but then the next HN story will be that cops are racist because they arrested felons for having car theft tools.
There's a nice wide middle ground between these two alternatives, where the cops arrest people when there is probable cause that they committed a specific crime.
Perhaps you are mistaking a difference in political creed for hatred. I have no hatred, blind or otherwise, for police. My brother will graduate the NY Police Academy in two weeks. However, I envision and work toward a world where police in their current form don't exist at all.
On HN, you probably have a large proportion of people who believe that, like many government services, police will be successfully and peacefully deprecated by voluntary systems yet to be invented.
Legalese is not my forte. Am I reading this correctly?
A woman called the police and told them that her husband, against a restraining order, came and took her children. Police did nothing. The husband then murdered the children, and a woman filed a suit against the police, saying they should've responded to her call.
The Police argued that it was essentially not their job to go after the husband, until an appropriate arrest warrant was issued, and therefore they were not at fault?
Wouldn't reducing petty crime lead to a reduction in overall crime? This is a serious question because I really don't know the answer. It could go both ways:
(a) You catch small crooks, and they lead you to bigger fish.
(b) You catch small crooks, and they can't do the job, so bigger fish recruits new small fish and the cycle begins again.
(c) You catch small crooks, the big fish gets angry and starts to cause real serious damage, leading to move and move violent crimes.
There must be some statistic from the past history that would shine a light on this. Thoughts?
I think that it would. While Giuliani's "broken windows" theory was probably overshadowed by the fading of crack and the clarification of gang territory, it seems pretty conclusive that enforcing minor crimes leads to keeping felons off the streets. Enforcing subway turnstiles led to the capture of a TON of gun-carrying felons that would have otherwise gone on to rob, rape, and murder New Yorkers.
Unfortunately, liberals have somehow seized upon such measures as fascist. My parent comment has received at least five downvotes, for nothing more than saying cops are people too. Stop-and-frisk measures in New York, which were enormously valuable in stopping felons from their next murders, have become persona non grata since black people are disproportionately like to be found breaking parole, carrying weapons, or transporting drugs.
I consider myself liberal, but I'm really disappointed by our kneejerk responses to crime prevention. I think a lot of it stems from white guilt, a self-loathing for which police now serve as whipping boys.
It saddens me to see stop and frisk put in the same category of the rest of this stuff. Sure, let's just blatantly violate the constitution for some perceived measure of public safety....
You want to enforce smaller laws? Great. You want the police to randomly stop and search citizens? Get the fuck out of my country.
> I really hate to see blind hatred for the police
> I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt
Why do you espouse blind trust and question 'blind' hatred? How can you be blind to what you've seen with your own eyes?
I understand the danger to personal quests for justice. I understand political pressure. But 'pressure' doesn't stop the officers from responding. They could respond to the call, but they choose not to. For political reasons, understandably, but the facts remain.
Sad that you're being down voted. Apparently The majority of HNers only care about drug legalization and stories demonizing underpaid civil servants doing a thankless and dangerous job.
Starting salary for Seattle Police Officer is $65K with full benefits and many earn over $100k with overtime. Unless you really mess up you will not be fired.
Criticizing the services you pay for doesn't mean you are saying all the people who do it are bad.
This story is pretty outrageous, but I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice. This could EASILY have led to a shootout. I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt than insist "police are never there to help you."