zlacker

Thanks for the book recommendation.

> How does nakedness justify escalating the situation to voilence? "The law is the law" is just an excuse.

Are you suggesting every person to decide what's allowed and what's not to the best of their judgment? I agree not all illegal activities are equal. If you use common sense then indeed you should try your best to avoid violence in illegal activities that don't put anyone in danger. But at the end of the day, when all fail and the person in front of you is not cooperating and refusing to put cloths on, then the police has no choice and arrest the person against their will. (If you disagree that nakedness should be illegal that's a different story and has nothing to do with the police)

>>tinyho+(OP)
You're welcome!

> If you disagree that nakedness should be illegal that's a different story and has nothing to do with the police

I do question the logic of nakedness being illegal (in many cases anyway), but I agree that's a different story. :)

> Are you suggesting every person to decide what's allowed and what's not to the best of their judgment?

I'm assuming the case you mentioned at Harvard was this one: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/04/cambridge-police...

So who gets to decide what "reasonable force required to arrest someone who is refusing arrest" is? You really think that repeatedly punching someone for being naked and on drugs is reasonable? Why? Why not just detain him and work on getting him to a safe place? Why does the situation warrant violence at all? Just because it's common in this country does not mean it's justified or ethical.

What if they had shot him, or knelt on his neck and killed him? Would that be "reasonable"? Where, then, is the line?

Right now, cops basically have 100% discretion to decide where that line is. Because they are not actually accountable to anyone but themselves, they just act and draw the line after the fact. The only difference between this and the murder of George Floyd is degree. That's what I meant.

> If you use common sense then indeed you should try your best to avoid violence in illegal activities that don't put anyone in danger

I agree in the abstract, but unfortunately there's a racial element to this "common sense." In the US, black people especially must use a different kind of common sense, and must always remember that any kind of transgression - up to and including "looking suspicious" - is grounds for detention, which can escalate arbitrarily to execution on the spot. So there's really no "avoiding violence" when your mere existence is grounds for murder with no consequences.

And again, just because you can have a "reasonable" expectation of violence from the cops does not mean that violence is justified.

> the police has no choice

Well, they had a choice to not become cops in the first place, to not enter a system that lacks accountability. They have a choice to not enforce unjust laws, especially in situations where no one's in danger. They have a choice to challenge their colleagues to justify their actions, whether that's kneeling on someone's neck or punching them in the stomach. They have a choice between violence and deescalation.

But they choose violence and escalation with alarming frequency in this country. And the system protects them.

>>acobst+6t1
You make valid points but it's clear you never had to deal with such situations. When you ask why not just detain him and move him to a safe place. Did you ever try to detain someone who is not cooperating? If you're dealing with someone strong, even 3-4 people can have a very hard time. You have to be physical and it can turn to some levels of violence. The key again is using common sense. The police system should educate their people and also change their hiring process so that people who lack good common sense don't become police officers. Saying that police officers had the choice not to join the police is not serious. Don't also forget that many minorities join the police.

>>tinyho+bj2
You seem to think that violence is the only option. You obviously think it's justified, but you still haven't stated a reason why being naked in public justifies bodily harm, maybe because you think the need to physically subdue this person was self-evident, by whatever means necessary? I disagree with that premise. This is why one of the central demands of the movement for black lives is "counselors not cops."

I'm 100% serious. Your mistake is in thinking it's a few bad apples. Certainly there are varying degrees of prejudice operating on the police force, but that's not the same thing as racism. The more you learn about the police force as it exists in America, the more you come to find that its roots are embedded in systemic racism. Cops may not realize it, but that doesn't mean it's not on them to decide to what degree they support the system. "Common sense" isn't enough because the system doesn't reward common sense, it rewards blind loyalty to the force. This is America's banality of evil.

>>acobst+DD2
Well, if a counselor could help resolve such situations quickly I'm all for it. But I'm doubtful based on my previous experience with troubled people. People have many opinions and ideas until one of those people become their own personal problem.

There has been systematic racism everywhere. Did we close academia because of systematic racism? The system will need to change. But there are no alternatives like some people here try to suggest. I think we will need to agree to disagree...

>>tinyho+7N2
"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings."

- Ursula K. Le Guin