If police do not know the law, then they should not be allowed to enforce it.

I have no expectation that the average police officer "knows the law", but that same problem should not be used against civilians.

It does stand, however, that an officer should be reprimanded for trying to enforce a law where they don't know the law.

I see that a little like someone yelling "let's abolish gravity" without stopping to consider: "what continues to exist if gravity no longer applies?"

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fen...

Have you seen that scene from the demonstration in Salt Lake City, where MAGA-man pointed a hunting bow at demonstrators? He was taken down and handed over to law enforcement unharmed. The bystanders displayed extraordinary restraint, no doubt because everything was filmed, and anyone who used deadly force would be harassed for the rest of their lives.

We'd like to see that same standard applied to cops.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kutv.com/amp/news/local/slc-pro...

We're talking apples and oranges, HarryHirsh, and I don't think you're willing to view this discussion in good faith. Good day.

In my world, "chasing someone with a large sword" sounds like initiating a fight, no? Is the complaint that... he lost it? Because it seems clear that he started it.

A meta point: this is why you need to stay away from sites like The Blaze. The guy with the lethal weapon was "beaten", but it's the protestors who were "violent".

This comment and others like it reminds me of this gem right here: https://twitter.com/Whateverlmao/status/1267132165935923201/...

It thinks he was a total fuckwit.

Violent crime is a scourge on America, with 15,292 homicides last year, not including non fatal shootings and/or other violent crime. As part of their job, police officers are called to deal with hardened criminals. There is a high level of risk involved. Can we stop for a second and be a tad grateful to the people that keep our neighborhoods reasonably safe?

'You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not. Make a mistake one way and we'll send condolences to your family, make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades. Make the right choice, and we'll throw another one your way next week'. Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal? And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?

There are justified situations, and there are grey areas.

And then there are situations whereby a man will have his hands on the top of his head, be kneeling still in the street. And he'll be shot 8+ times by the police.

I can be entirely grateful to the police who do an honorable job. And to those in uniform who condemn egregious injustices by their own. They are doing honorable, good work.

I can simultaneously have a depth of derision and anger for those who see a badge, a uniform, and a gun as an excuse to exercise their latent psychological weaknesses, aggression, etc.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangero...

They likely picked the most dangerous ones.

Anyway this is an idiotic bullshit argument in the context of George Floyd. The man was on the ground, unarmed with four police there. That police officer wasn't being asked to put his life on the line, so what you're saying is irrelevant.

To be fair, that officer was both fired and was arrested + charged, which in my understanding means neither the (mayor? department?) and the prosecutor do not think qualified immunity is merited in this case.

It does drive us to the important point: where is the threshold where qualified immunity is forfeited?

I don't know much about it, but taking "qualified immunity", which is evaluated by prosecutors and DAs, and moving it to a police organization (expecting police to police the police) doesn't sound like an improvement.

Perhaps it would work if it was coupled with some sort of a complete overhaul in the culture of policing, but I don't see how the "culture" changes from the outside.

I'm more interested in hearing level-headed proposals.

Let judges decide what lawsuits are frivolous.

> You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun or not.

What are your goal posts for this excuse?

For example: what would an officer have to do to you or your family to make you turn on the officer's actions and demand accountability? It's important to remember that officers frequently demand to see something from your wallet or phone (both of which are located around your belt, where you might have a gun stored).

Also ironic is that police are completely capable of restraining themselves when other officers have guns and when white men carry guns into a state capitol. It's not simply the presence of a gun that police are reacting to.

> make a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades.

This is literally the law for civilians. I don't see how you can expect an officer to enforce a law that they, themselves, are not willing to be subject to.

Personally, I think the only question is how much good faith should we give officers in questionable cases of use of force.

> Who in their right mind would take that kind of a deal?

I think every public school teacher in America asks themselves that question every week, but it's still one of the most common professions. People weigh their personal values against the value of their job.

> And if nobody in their right mind would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at gun point?

Logical fallacy. The people that are currently officers wouldn't suddenly vanish from the face of the Earth. We would still have private security and parents and teachers and neighbors and business owners and good samaritans.

Police officers are generally very strong proponents of the 2A, whose lobbies love to repeat the mantra "When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away". Without police, the average person would step up and defend themselves more than they do now. Game theory.

I think the biggest problem with US policing in the US is that there are always people who post what you did. It's not a balanced evaluation of what would actually happen if there were more reasonable accountability on police actions but rather "do whatever police unions want because otherwise morale will fall and chaos will reign". Maybe you should consider the morale of the people who see police in their neighborhoods and houses as the same people who are "imposing their own rule at gun point".