-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Barr on Police - "Comply first" "Complain later" "Zero tolerance for resisting police"
- Thread starter Syriel
- Start date
Seriously because this bares repeating: Why is it ok to expect untrained civilians to remain perfectly calm while a cop is literally pointing a gun in their face for no good reason, but people are fine with a cop, a trained professional, defaulting to deadly force the moment it seems like the suspect might be even slightly disobedient or dangerous?
This is so incredibly naive that I can't believe you are seriously making some of these arguments. And I say naive because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and most charitable interpretation of this post.
like I said in an earlier post, the idea that blindly accepting an arrest and having enough resources (being able to take time off for the initial arrest, plus court appearances, plus possibly a lawyer if its serious because public defenders dont have the resources to handle a serious cass) to deal with it is pure privilege. Considering heavy handed policing tends to be inflicted on at risk communities, an unfair arrest can be cataclysmic to their life and cause damage for years; excessive fines, community service disrupting your work, many job applications ask if you have even misdemeanors on your record (mine did), etc.
People act like arresting someone isnt a disruptive and violent act in itself. Right now the choice is to actively risk death, or deal with an incident that can follow you for the rest if your life..both shitty choices.
I get the idea is not to get murdered, but the alternative is pretty harmful.
Throwing it as the lesser evil is less about 'live to fight another day' more like 'I can cut this arm off, or just break it and if you can afford it it might heal alright', lol
I absolute agree with you. And with any comment criticizing police training. But my argument is against resisting. When is resisting, or otherwise failing to comply, going to have a better outcome for you in the end? We should want to comply with police offers, we want to believe they are acting in good faith. But we should also be armed with recording devices, and any other means of maintaining transparency.
The fact is, there is a serious effort to undermine police legitimacy, and the public response, if it involves increased disobedience, will only lead to increased militarization of police, not less.
Because in principle, that is the job they are trained to do. Although "at the first sign of trouble" is clearly not a good excuse. But in the United States of Firearms Galore, sadly, the incident level will never be near to null, like it is in places like Japan (where police are actually armed a lot of time).
A lot of these claims are hyperbolic or otherwise exaggerated in the media. It's incredibly difficult to determine what's true in the overwhelming majority of cases. Many police do get arrested and lose their jobs, but we only hear about it when they don't. Regardless, what is clear is that there are issues across the board.
That does not change the fact that resistance or failure to comply is a very bad idea that will not solve anything.
The burden of the risk should fall on the Police Officer and not the civilian because taking that risk is inherently the officer's job, it's what they're getting paid for and why we allow them their authority in the first place
Unless I missed it, you quoted all of that and still didn't respond to the one where the guy was told to get his wallet and then got shot for doing it?
Edit: Or how about the assistant to a person with special needs who was lying down on the ground with his hands in the air and they shot him anyway?
OP
OP
"Believe" is not good enough. There are many, many, many examples of police making up "the law" or outright issuing illegal orders.
Look up anything to do with photography in public places. And that's a very basic, very mild example.
Is every police officer bad? No. Many are good. But the FOP has a TERRIBLE track record on this sort of thing. They blindly stan for all officers, even the bad ones.
I will follow any police order issued in good faith, but I will (and have) pushed back on illegal orders from police officers.
If Barr wants to take a stance like this he needs to sort out his own house (and that of law enforcement in general) first.
This is on every citizen to push back against, doubly so for anyone who ever took an Oath of Allegiance to the US.
The problem with this is that officers are often not acting in good faith. The actions of police have undermined their legitimacy, and for good reason.
Also police are often not experts on the law and often make illegal requests or orders of citizens. Citizens should NOT be complying with those orders, and officers will continue to attempt those orders because abusing their power 'makes their job easier'.
What is your basis for the claim that resisting is currently enough of an issue to justify Barr's language here, other than "the police claim lots of people resist them"?
You do realize many videos of police arrests have the cops demanding the person stop filming, right?
Also, in addition to my previous statement, if the police want to be treated with legitimacy, they need to earn it. The organization is corrupt and rotten to the core at the moment with pretty much no accountability. If the police want legitimacy, they need to make the first move by sorting out their own affairs and proving they deserve it. Because everyone submitting to an organization because of their inherent legal authority regardless of right or wrong doesn't lead to them changing, especially when many people join the police specifically to lord authority over other individuals
Clearly those people shooting video should be arrested. For resisting the orders of the police
OP
OP
Which is absolutely, blatantly, 100% illegal, for them to do. It's not even a grey area.
So resisting arrest is the solution to all of that?
I don't disagree that all of that sucks. I absolutely think that police should pay for all of it, including compensation for lost work hours, petrol, inconvenience. Stricter laws in that regard will do more to reduce incidences of false arrest that people increasingly resisting arrest, or refusing to comply with police instructions.
Again, I totally agree with your sentiment here. But as a matter of practicality, and also ideally the world we want to live in, which I assume still has police, is one in which we trust police have good reasons for what they do.
You know what is needed? Gun control. Way more gun control. And also non-lethal alternatives to firearms. (and all the other things I've said above, of course)
But clearly they should just comply first and complain later, when they'll have no evidence or proof because they already complied. Surely that will work out for them
I'm not sure where we disagree here? Absolutely. Every time they draw their weapon there should be questions asked; ideally.
Sigh.. so in the end even the most innocuous questions like "What did I do?" or "What's going on?" is left solely on the discretion of the police officers to entertain? And they would even be well within their right to interpret someone confused as "not immediately complying" or "resisting arrest" ?
Yeah I'm all for cooperating but I seriously find it hard to stomach that personally.
Looks and feels like a goldmine of abuse for someone high on their own authority. Idk man is it too much to expect them to be more than just some thuggish rigid enforcers?
The problem is that police can and do slap the label of "resisting arrest" for the pettiest reasons, or even made up reasons. Not complying with the cops when they don't have the legal right to force compliance isn't actually resisting arrest, but is often charged as such by cops because it gives them an excuse
And yet the same person making this statement is affirming their right to do so in this very statement, the one that you are personally defending
I don't mean to be condescending but this is the thing that I think people really need to wrap their heads around: cops lie. All the time. Cops lie and cops tell people to do illegal things. Anything can be "resisting arrest"
People should seriously listen to Serial Season 2, in which they dive into the criminal justice system on a more systemic level and they're just flabbergasted at how much injustice starts with cops and other authority figures just lying about shit
I dunno what to tell you if you think its hyperbolic. SURE, walking in Regulartown, USA the odds of a cop walking up and shooting you to death even as a minority is low.
But the idea that there's a system in place that works well in dealing with officer misconduct, i think you're wrong about that. You've had some of the biggest police institutions like Chicago fall under fed oversight because of those lack of controls.
And you've got stories like this:
We can argue that statistically (is that what you're arguing) its hyperbolic to paint cops arresting every POC they see. However there's enough corruption in the system where its not a leap to say there are tens of thousands unfairly in various stages of it, from parole to jail to pending cases. Its more than enough to be of a concern across the board
Last edited:
Yep. Treating law enforcement organizations like the police as inherently being legitimate without needing to earn said legitimacy through proper actions and protocol is inherently dangerous and encourages abuse of the system because it leads to people inherently trusting those in a position of power in a he said she said situation and this is ABSOLUTELY DANGEROUS because that will always lead to abuse of said power
This is why any good attorney will tell you to minimize contact with law enforcement, because they can and will lie to you as much as possible.
What would this look like in your view? (I totally agree with you, of course. But again, how does our resisting or refusing to comply fit in here?)
OP
OP
1) There is never a "good reason" for an illegal order. Yet so many cops love to tell people to stop taking photos.
2) If guns are such a "threat" you would expect police to be 100% in favor of gun control. They aren't.
Dude cops will call literally any behavior 'resisting arrest'. They don't have to justify the judgement in the moment either, they can just claim you are resisting, arrest you, and then those charges can be dropped later with no consequences to officers.
They need oversight by a third party, preferably a federal agency of non-law enforcement whose job it is to audit departments and enforce standards.
Failure to comply is an issue because police have a habbit of giving orders that conflict with one another. There was the hotel incident where they gave unreasonable orders to a man who was intoxicated and they shot him while he was on his knees begging for his life. There was the recent incident with a local fire chiefs daughter where he literally started firing shots at her dog while she was in the long of fire and ordered her get her dog under control after he shot her.
Among other things: Much more accountability, an independent organization that investigates and prosecutes crimes by police officers with no ties to the standard police force, an ironclad standard of police wearing and maintaining body cameras and recording devices at all times when on duty with severe punishments for failing to have a recording as well them automatically being considered liable (though possibly not always to the full extent if evidence against them isn't present) for any action resulting in a civilian death or severe injury that is not properly recorded. Now this is obviously holding them to a much higher standard than a civilian, but such standards are natural and necessary as a prerequisite for the power and responsibility they are permitted to wield
It's an idea proposed by Frank Serpico, the famous NYPD whistleblower
I share your sentiments. Again I have no argument against the clearly widespread problems with law enforcement across the board. That's not really the argument I want to have. But nobody is telling me resisting arrest is the solution. It might be, if it were were in fact safer to do so, but it isn't.
Barr's message is mostly correct, but his motivation for spreading it, and the idea that 'zero tolerance' is a coherent policy with regards to this, is absolute nonsense. If there should be zero tolerance for anything, it should be for policies that permit poor police training, and indeed, police breaking the law.
Yes, they have that right. It's their job to do so. But if they do so, they should face the consequences, even if they never pull the trigger, and especially if they do. Even if they miss. Even if it's a warning shot.
I never made this claim. There are public defenders, but I don't know how good or bad they are. I expect quite bad a lot of the time.
1) Agreed. Those police should be suspended, or even lose their jobs.
2) No group is ever 100% in favor of anything. I expect cops in New York are majoritively for it, and cops in Texas, majoritively against. Only the public can change public opinion.
Okay guys, I'm taking a break. Sinking too much time into this. Most replies are not actually disagreeing with me, but point to what I absolute agree with: Police conduct is often bad, and training worse. I don't see anyone encouraging people refuse to comply with police though, so there isn't really more to say.
This is definitely the bare minimum. No organization should ever be trusted to self regulate itself, because in pretty much every case there's far more benefit to them not doing so and being corrupt than doing it properly. Doubly so when said organization provides a necessary function for society and where people can't just choose an alternative if said organization is clearly shady.
Whistleblowing officers in the NYPD have recorded commanding officers ordering cops to go to city parks and arrest as many black males age 16-25 as they can on whatever trumped up bullshit they can think of. Racism is baked into how police operate in this country
You never really addressed the fact that police routinely make illegal orders and lie to people, which are perfect examples of when people should refuse to comply.
I think the underlying issue is all that shit is going to happen anyway. Not complying just makes it worse.
For me its how you started with Barr is right. Like "the talk" on how to deal with cops is such a known quantity you have corporations doing commercials based around it. But its rough seeing Barr who's department has had to step in to stop cop misdoing basically say, "Good job guys, we know the civilians are the real problem with their resisting", lol. I get your point, but using Barr as a jumpoff point for it, you shouldda known it was gonna be a sea of "but..."
Barr isn't right though. People should not be complying if offers are making illegal demands...which they do all the time.
Except there are plenty of concrete steps that the government could take to address those issues, but the whole point of this statement is to take the onus off the government reforming a corrupt and broken justice system and instead placing the blame of the incidents where lives are lost on the victims
Okay. You know that police vehemently do not right? Why do you think they oppose it?