|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcphage
3689 days ago
|
|
|
> I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened. Because I don't think it's clear (or even true) that the police did something wrong in this case. A crime occurred, through their investigation they believed the author to be a suspect, they investigated him and found out he was not. > What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business? Obviously it would suck—but that doesn't mean that the police aren't allowed to do that. > Do you want that to be allowed and normal? Do I want police to be able to investigate crimes? Yes, I do want that. > So why are you arguing? Because this article jumps from "this thing happened to me and it sucks", to "this thing should not be allowed to happen". |
|
|
"This should not be allowed to happen" isn't saying the police can't investigate. The "this" that's being discussed is whether they should be able to storm the situation SWAT style with weapons drawn, not whether they should attempt to locate a perp, verify stolen property, or do the proper paperwork.
The problem I have with your argument is that you're glossing over the threat of violence and use of weapons. You're calling that "investigate" and painting it as something demure. I don't feel like you're being completely honest by insisting on calling it "investigate". Drawing weapons is not an investigation, that's a detainment of a suspect. The investigation could have happened another way, it could have involved asking first, it could have involved checking the serial numbers they already had access to, it could have involved everything without the taser, it could have been conducted in private, the police could have announced their intentions and their names and not tried so hard to scare the guy into submission.
Regardless of what the article said, and whether you like it or not, "this" already isn't allowed to happen under the law, it's just not enforced much. The law is already clear that police can't pull a weapon on someone or detain them unless they have reason to believe that specific person was involved in a crime. We already decided this, it's a done deal. So the article is right, it should not be allowed to happen this way.