I don't like the fact that I trust self-policing by any community (even my own) more than the institution that is supposed to be doing policing. But whether I like it doesn't affect things.
I agree that it is important for us, as a free society, to fix policing. In the meantime, the best way to minimize injustice is not to invoke police when there is no immedate threat that can't be otherwise solved.
The police and judicial system sometimes have conflicting incentives as well, but at least they are aligned more with the public good than ours are. There are laws and they are, for the most part, rewarded for enforcing them.
Of course they do. They can call the highway patrol or 911 and report a disabled vehicle. Let's imagine how that call would go.
911: 911, What's your emergency?
Driver: Hi, there was a vehicle travelling slowly on the freeway with its emergency flashers on, I had to switch lanes.
Pause...
Driver: Hello?
911: Sorry, I was waiting for you to finish. Was there any other information? Did the driver or occupants appear to be in distress?
Driver: I don't think so, he was alone and appeared to be talking to someone, perhaps on hands-free, or maybe On-Star?
911: 911 is for emergencies only, in the future please report events of this type to local authorities' non-emergency number accessible via 411. Goodbye.I would like to think that a call to 911 with more information (which of course a fellow driver wouldn't have) would be handled differently:
911: 911, What's your emergency?
Driver: Hi, someone on the freeway has purposefully disabled their vehicle in a location without shoulders, and is slowing while driving, impeding traffic. I'm not sure if the power brakes or steering are functioning, but the driver is definitely not in full control of the vehicle.
911: We've dispatched an officer to your location. Has there been an accident yet? Has the driver recovered control of the vehicle?And tossing chocolate bars into your neighbor's campsite in hopes that the angry bear will wreck their stuff is just not cool.
Unless the unruly bear is these security researchers, the fleeing campers are other security researchers in the same field, and their fleeing is them correctly assessing that some LEA is going to be taking down any bears nearby that even twitch wrong after this.
Bad actors ruin it for everyone.
You seem to think that because the police are theoretically under democratic oversight, that one can safely interact with cops as though the nominal rules of engagement will restrict them, but even if - in the long run - it is possible to rein them in, the law enforcement system we actually have right now is unpredictable, unjust, and unsafe.
If you distrust the police to the degree that you think even if your actions weren't illegal you will still have negative consequences from interacting with them, definitely don't do the above.
When someone's actions extend to endangering the public to the degree we see here (which I think is obvious once you've watched the video), they are past any good will I would have extended them in not contacting the police for fear of an overreaction. Their clear disregard for public safety is reason enough for me.
Additionally, on the chance that it was entirely intentional and they are counting on the media and possibly even law enforcement response to help make this an issue, they they definitely don't need our restraint, and nor do they want it.
It does not matter that we theoretically have democratic oversight. In practice, what we have is a system where cops can do whatever they think fit and expect to get away with it. They are armed and dangerous; it is not safe to interact with them. It is not a good idea to call them, or to talk with them if someone else calls them, because they - the cops - have a clear disregard for public safety when it is counter to their own interests.
If I was robbed, I would call the police. If I saw someone waving a gun around in public, I would call the police. If I saw someone using a car as a weapon, I would call the police. If I see a situation where people are endangering the public and someone might get hurt, I would call the police. Not doing so when I clearly knew I should would make me feel somewhat responsible for any negative outcomes otherwise.
I'm not really interesting in continuing a discussion where the other side's position seems to be "the police are racist scumbags and they will ruin your life with the slightest contact, so don't call them on criminals." You might find that characterization unfair, but then again, you're the one over-generalizing using large media events as evidence instead statistics.
Edit: Removed reference to ad-hominem, which wasn't factually correct.
While I agree with much of the rest of what you right in that comment, this is not accurate: overgeneralizing a negative stereotype of someone other than the other party in a debate isn't "pulling an ad hominem".