• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

We're Supposed to Trust These People?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,196
3,194
136
The trouble is it seems to be much the same all over the world (and throughout history). Almost as if there's something in the nature of being a cop that either selects for this or encourages it. To me that makes it seem impossible to fix the problem.


Edit - for example, Australia


 
Last edited:

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Platinum Member
Nov 17, 2019
2,622
1,458
96

NWRMidnight

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2001
1,147
765
136
FloriduhCops:

It just keeps on keepin' on.

You have to stop and realize that police are Humans just like everyone else on this planet. Just as we have bad humans among us (criminals, etc), so will the Police. There is no test in the world that can weed out all of those bad apples until they do something to show who they really are. The problem is not holding them accountable when it's learned they are bad apples. That is what needs to be fixed. But, then again, we don't hold everyone accountable outside the police, and we have a "lets blame someone else" mentality rather than holding the actual individual accountable for their choices and their actions.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,631
3,126
126
How do two criminal cases against police suggest we can't "trust these people?"

Suppose I were to cite two criminal cases against black people, then conclude from that we can't trust "those people?"
woolfe9998 the Supreme Court has stated that the Police are not here to serve and protect citizens....
Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Mises Institute
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.

So my answer would be no and no and no...I personally don`t trust a cop any further than I can spit....
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,508
32
91
How do two criminal cases against police suggest we can't "trust these people?"

Suppose I were to cite two criminal cases against black people, then conclude from that we can't trust "those people?"
Because if you have a liberal arts degree, the plural of anecdote is data. That's how.
Nothing to see here...move along.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,196
3,194
136
Because if you have a liberal arts degree, the plural of anecdote is data. That's how.
Nothing to see here...move along.
I have no idea what kind of education you had - probably a very bad one, given how incapable you are of rational argument and the difficulty you apparently have at comprehending the difference between assigning collective responsibiltiy to a group like 'the police' and one like 'black people')

(I had to look up what a 'liberal arts degree' is - seems to be a specifically-American thing, don't really see what that has to do with the topic)
 

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,217
1,283
136
Someone else mentioned it but the biggest problem in my eyes with police in the U.S. is 0 accountability. I legimitely do not understand how cops like the human piece of garbage that killed Daniel Shaver and others get to walk away.

As soon as "I feared for my life" stops being an excuse that can get you out of anything 90% of the time I bet you'll at least see some amount of change for the better.
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,508
32
91
I have no idea what kind of education you had - probably a very bad one, given how incapable you are of rational argument and the difficulty you apparently have at comprehending the difference between assigning collective responsibiltiy to a group like 'the police' and one like 'black people')

(I had to look up what a 'liberal arts degree' is - seems to be a specifically-American thing, don't really see what that has to do with the topic)
I wouldn't assign collective responsibility to any group of people based on a sample size of 2, or 20, or 2000 for that matter. It has no statistical validity.
I'm glad you learned something, but in the future no need to post every tidbit of new information you discover on this forum. (We don't care.)
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,196
3,194
136
I wouldn't assign collective responsibility to any group of people based on a sample size of 2, or 20, or 2000 for that matter. It has no statistical validity.
I'm glad you learned something, but in the future no need to post every tidbit of new information you discover on this forum. (We don't care.)
No idea what you are talking about. Who is the "we" to which you refer? Your fellow right-wing crackpot Trumpists?

It's perfectly reasonable to assign collective responsibility to an organised collective. A body with power and structure and heirachy and the ability to self-police can be held responsible for the behaviour of its membership. That's entirely different from doing so for a group that has no such power to self-police. Surprised that has to be explained to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54 and dank69

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,508
32
91
No idea what you are talking about. Who is the "we" to which you refer? Your fellow right-wing crackpot Trumpists?

It's perfectly reasonable to assign collective responsibility to an organised collective. A body with power and structure and heirachy and the ability to self-police can be held responsible for the behaviour of its membership. That's entirely different from doing so for a group that has no such power to self-police. Surprised that has to be explained to you.
This was said earlier in this thread, but you apparently got confused and/or forgot: "you can't make a case against an entire group based on anecdotal evidence".
Take some statistics classes, learn to think logically and critically, and let us know how you make out.
Good luck.
 

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,217
1,283
136
This was said earlier in this thread, but you apparently got confused and/or forgot: "you can't make a case against an entire group based on anecdotal evidence".
Take some statistics classes, learn to think logically and critically, and let us know how you make out.
Good luck.
I wouldn't assign collective responsibility to any group of people based on a sample size of 2, or 20, or 2000 for that matter. It has no statistical validity.
I'm glad you learned something, but in the future no need to post every tidbit of new information you discover on this forum. (We don't care.)
Sample sizes of 2000 have no statistical validity? Maybe you're the one who needs to take a statistics course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
8,196
3,194
136
This was said earlier in this thread, but you apparently got confused and/or forgot: "you can't make a case against an entire group based on anecdotal evidence".
Take some statistics classes, learn to think logically and critically, and let us know how you make out.
Good luck.
Took a few stats classes as part of my maths degree.

I note you ignored the point I just made, so it's clearly a waste of time trying to argue with you. Good bye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,044
9,515
136
Turns out they can't even trust each other ....

"A former police lieutenant-turned-lawyer has been sentenced to over four years in prison after cheating a fellow officer of $900,000 he was owed for working at the smoldering World Trade Center site after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Associated Press April 19, 2021"


Wow. That is fucking disgusting right there. Guy probably has chronic health issues on top of being robbed by a comrade. What a fucker.
 

MtnMan

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2004
5,945
4,179
136
Locally a cop fired for knocking a subject unconscious who had his hands handcuffed behind his back, and was in the back seat of a patrol car was actually fired. Has gone to work for the sheriffs' dept in a neighboring county.

 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
I have no idea what kind of education you had - probably a very bad one, given how incapable you are of rational argument and the difficulty you apparently have at comprehending the difference between assigning collective responsibiltiy to a group like 'the police' and one like 'black people')

(I had to look up what a 'liberal arts degree' is - seems to be a specifically-American thing, don't really see what that has to do with the topic)
Conservatives think it's just things like literature, art, basket weaving, and the like. We should never look back at past events, you know History.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,126
8,162
136
No idea what you are talking about. Who is the "we" to which you refer? Your fellow right-wing crackpot Trumpists?

It's perfectly reasonable to assign collective responsibility to an organised collective. A body with power and structure and heirachy and the ability to self-police can be held responsible for the behaviour of its membership. That's entirely different from doing so for a group that has no such power to self-police. Surprised that has to be explained to you.
Perhaps. You can observe that there are systemic problems in a particular police department, or even with police departments on the whole, if the case for systemic problems can be made. And by that I mean, the case for a systemic problem - rather than rogue behavior - must be proven. But even if that is proven, it doesn't mean "this cop is bad; therefore, all cops are bad." Those are completely different things. And that assertion - "how can we trust these people" - is how the thread started.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,126
8,162
136
Sample sizes of 2000 have no statistical validity? Maybe you're the one who needs to take a statistics course.
Depends how the sample was obtained. If you wanted to assess violence among American police, you could take a random sample of 2000 and examine their files. That would be legitimate. However, if you have a media selected sample of 2000 cops who did bad things, which is why they are in the news, then generalizing from 2000 -> 700,000 total police is not valid. What is occurring with the way people react to these news stories is really analogous to the latter, not the former. However many cases we hear about in the news, it is not a scientific sample.
 
Last edited:

ecogen

Golden Member
Dec 24, 2016
1,217
1,283
136
Depends how the sample was obtained. If you wanted to assess violence among American police, you could take a random sample of 2000 and examine their files. That would be legitimate. However, if you have a media selected sample of 2000 cops who did bad things, which is why they are in the news, then generalizing from 2000 -> 700,000 total police is not valid. What is occurring with the way people react to these news stories is really analogous to the latter, not the former. However many cases we hear about in the news, it is not a scientific sample.
Yes I know the way the sample is selected is important, that's irrelevant to the point.

The person I replied to was obviously talking about sample size specifically.

I wouldn't assign collective responsibility to any group of people based on a sample size of 2, or 20, or 2000 for that matter. It has no statistical validity.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY