White Haven wrote:
Hoo boy, do I hate omnislashing. Ah well, here goes. First-off, your claim that there is 'no systemic loss of trust' is just as baseless, yet we're supposed to treat it as holy writ. Alright, I'll bite. How's
Gallup treat you? No 2011 numbers yet, which I expect will be substantially influenced by the news coverage of OWS itself if the survey is conducted during or after the current events. Still, even without that that's still a 6% drop in the number of polled individuals who rate their trust in police officers as a whole as 'high' or 'very high' between 2009 and 2010. That is, in fact, the definition of a loss of trust in the police.
While that might indicate a loss of trust (since it says nothing whatsoever about attitudes that were not already high or very high) police officers are still in the top quarter of professions; only 5 other jobs top them. Furthermore, a one-year trend is dubious as a "systemic loss of trust". What's the margin of error on that poll like?
I'd also point out that for 2008-2009, the
increase was 7%, so your 'systemic loss of trust' is looking more like simply fluctuation from poll to poll.
Still, I am impressed that you at least tried to support this argument. That's better than most libertarians usually do, so I have to say 'A' for effort, even if it's a C- for accuracy.
Secondly, while the FBI might look into the occasional matter, that's generally what Internal Affairs departments are for. Particularly, one of the videos previously linked has a police official mentioning that he has two officers assigned to investigate the matter.
So?
Thirdly, it's precisely like Enron investigating itself. An Enron accountant could have investigated the company and outed everything to the SEC and brought the whole thing tumbling down. An internal police investigation could reach an honest conclusion. I never claimed it was impossible, only that it was impossible to trust the conclusion in the absence of any independent investigation. That same problem applies to every self-policing organization anywhere, not just the police themselves. Why do you think the SEC even exists?
No, it actually is not. It would be like an Enron accountant investigating the actions of one lower-level manager. You are conflating a company investigating itself as an organization with a police department investigating the actions of individual officers, which is not comparable. If the department were conducting an investigation into itself
as a whole, that would be comparable, and you would be correct about the lack of trust. In this case, however, the impossibility of trust is based on your stereotypes of police officers, not on any inherent problem with an organization investigating itself; the organization is investigating the
actions of members as individuals which is far, far less problematic.
[It does indeed matter who I trust, because I'm a member of the public and public trust in the police is, as has been previously demonstrated, decreasing. I don't have to personally be satisfied, no, but a populace is just a lot of individuals, and if they collectively trust independent video over police statements, that means something else entirely. As of the previously-referenced poll, something like 10% of Americans agree with me, and while that's not enough to elect a candidate it's certainly not a drop in the bucket. And another 33% only consider themselves to have 'average' trust in the police. Simon's earlier point regarding there being two different classes of police behavior with differing levels of trust attached to them is well-made as well. I'm very curious what that poll would show if it were split into 'Police undertaking normal police work' and 'Police undertaking crowd control work.' Are you?
Well, first of all, you did not demonstrate that trust has been decreasing, you demonstrated a fluctuation that remains around 60% between 2008 and 2010. If I were more cynical I'd accuse you of cherry-picking the data, but I honestly think you just didn't read it carefully enough.
Second, no, it does not matter whether you personally trust the police or not, except insofar as you consitute about 1/3x10^8 of the total population of this country (very roughly).
Second, you admit only 10% of Americans disagree with you. 33% having 'average' trust is really not much of an issue, given that this is still only 43%; the vast majority of that 43% cannot be said to truly distrust the police ('average' trust most likely means the person simply does not think that much about the issue).
Third, Simon's post, while well-thought-out, was still speculative when it comes to crowd control work, and incorporates (to a lesser degree) the same problem you exhibit - you don't really grasp that other people honestly do not see these issues the same way you do. Some, evidently about 10% do, but quite frankly, that 10% is unlikely to be pleased by any effort by the police.
Fourth, I know of no way to break the poll down in that fashion and so I'm not terribly concerned with it.
This happens all the TIME. I'm not referring to cases that never see the light of day ever again, I'm talking about how almost every investigation disappears into a hole until a conclusion is thrown back out, often very quietly compared to the profile of the original case.
Except almost no investigations "disappear into a hole" unless what you're referring to is the failure of the press to keep carrying on about it endlessly. Here's a clue: the press has a very short attention span, and so does most of the public. This is what happens with almost every major public issue; it's big news for a short time and then people forget.
In your eyes, perhaps, and perhaps in the eys of OWS protestors and the citizens of Oakland, but you aren't limiting it that way. You are not in a position to speak for the American public at large as to their attitude towards law enforcement at large.
Already covered.
And already demonstrated that your claimed deterioration of public trust represents yearly fluctuations. Let's look at a quote form your own poll:
There has been little meaningful change in the ratings of professions that are measured annually, compared with last year. To the extent there was change -- as in the case of pharmacists (+5), police officers (-6), bankers (+4), and lawyers (+4) -- the ratings have generally returned to the levels of two years ago.
Apparently, the average is around 56-57% consistently, and for some reason trust in the police
surged in 2009, before returning to normal levels in 2010. Your argument for deteriorating public opinion is getting weaker and weaker. In the future, when you cite sources, it helps to look at them closely, not just pick out one bit of data you think supports your position.
Police don't like the story that's being told? Maybe they should tell their own, with more than empty, unsupported police statement soundbytes. They want to argue that there was a goon with a molotov behind the guy with the camera who got shot? Provide something, video footage, a picture of a big fuckoff rock or a broken bottle and a rag next to the guy. Police at a crime scene document everything, damned near, but a whole shitload of police in a riot line either document nothing, or the documentation vanishes into a blue-colored black hole.
"Documenting" everything means writing it down afterwards, for the most part. If they did release "documentation" you'd just be claiming it was doctored, and citing your own distrust as evidence.
Moreover, the police cannot just release evidence. The courts have rules about tainting evidence and jury pools that have to be followed. Are you suggesting the police should engage in battles of subjective public opinion at the expense of proper criminal procedure? If so, take it up with the Supreme Court.
I'm also curious how you think police are supposed to do much documentation in the middle of crowd control.
God, are you thick? I never said that punishments should be handed out when someone isn't guilty. I said that punishments handed out when people ARE guilty should suit the severity of the offense, both the actual act and the fact that it was committed in a breach of the trust the public theoretically places in police officers. I don't want Anonymous to release information on police officers, unless that's the only way to get it. I don't want rocks thrown at the police, but if a police officer nails someone with a rubber bullet and they WEREN'T part of the Evil Occupy Wall Street Conspiracy you seem to love implying, I'm not going to shed crocodile tears if a few bricks wing back in his direction.
First of all, I have never in any way implied any Evil Occupy Wall Street Conspiracy; I have repeatedly said that OWS's major reasons for protesting are ones I agree with. So you can, quite frankly, shove that right up your ass. The fact is that OWS does include a nontrivial number of unscrupulous individuals, and is for the most part, completely unvetted as to who is involved, and therefore can certianly not be implicitly trusted as to the specifics of incidents.
Second, what you said was "even if the investigations are honest AND the punishments are more than slaps on the wrist..." This sentence, as you wrote it, (the word AND is critical here) indicates that the investigations must result in punishments to have been honest, and moreover that those punishments must be more than "slaps on the wrist", which, as a vague colloquialism, can only be read as "sufficiently harsh to please White Haven personally." Had you said "the punishments,
if any, are more than slaps on the wrist,
when appropriate", or something of that nature, you would have avoided this problem because the sentence would not indicate that guilt is already determined in your mind, and the only thing left to do is determine if any punishments handed out are sufficiently harsh for your tastes.
No, you never said someone shouldn't be punished when they aren't guilty, but that does not change the bottom line that your mind is already made up about guilt. It is of little consequence to allow that those not guilty should not be punished when you dismiss any cause for doubt as to guilt in the first place.
These men of straw are truly extraordinary constructions, I simply must have the blueprints for them.
You have, in no way whatsoever, been strawmanned. Not even a little bit.
I will allow that maybe you didn't think carefully about what you were writing before you wrote it. The fact remains, however, that you did at a minimum strongly imply that there simply is no question of guilt in your mind, and that nothing to the contrary could be legitimate.
Shit like this is why I'm kind of glad it isn't legal to go around punching people in the crotch. You'd be able to track my movement from orbit from the sheer mass of idiots I'd leave lying on the ground clutching their privates in my wake. -- Mr. Coffee
