[tw000001]

I won't deny that there are corruption and accountability problems among US police forces, but I also can't help but feel like many people, especially now, don't appreciate the fact that American police deal with people who are violent, disrespectful, and frequently mentally ill on a sometimes daily basis.

These are humans too and they're watching society (and especially media) totally dehumanize them. To some degree their anger is arguably justified.

I feel like it's impossible to get an accurate feel for how many people are protesting and what proportion of the population supports the protests. But I have a feeling it's a minority, maybe 10-30% of the population, in which case you cannot let a fraction of your population hold your entire city hostage, especially when opportunists are simultaneously looting and burning, though that seems to have calmed down recently.

Point being, if the protestors won't listen when asked to leave, and if they are disrupting the lives and livelihoods of 70-90% of the population, I don't see any option other than gradual escalation, which typically precedes gas and rubber bullets.

The police in a city in Canada went on strike in the late 1960s[1]. Things didn't go well. And we've already seen that American demographics are willing to burn and loot even with police present...so I don't mean to defend police but I really don't see anything good coming from police standing down or refusing to use force.

1.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray-Hill_riot

Edit: Downvotes are intended for discouraging low effort or otherwise poor comments, not to shame people for disagreeing. Whether you like it or not at least half the country supports police, they play an important role in society, and that makes this a discussion worth having.

[rsynnott]

> don't appreciate the fact that American police deal with people who are violent, disrespectful, and frequently mentally ill on a sometimes daily basis.

Lots of people have difficult stressful jobs dealing with people who don’t have much respect for them. That’s not an excuse for criminality, though. Take medical professionals. In the public mind, there are few things more horrifying and reprehensible than the doctor or nurse who deliberately kills or neglects their patients. There’s pretty much universal agreement that this is not okay, and that it is in fact a morally worse crime than normal murder or neglect, as it is done by someone in a position of trust. It should be the same for police.

[flippinburgers]

In defense of the OP the interaction between doctor and patient is not at all like the interaction between police officer and criminal.

There has to be a way forward when it comes to police reform, but it is a valid question to ask whether or not policing itself takes a particular toll.

[tomlagier]

I've wondered over the last week whether a strategy to fighting the perverse psychological changes that seem to settle in the minds of many police officers would be term limits? An "up or out" mentality like in the armed forces[1]?

It seems like many of the worst offenders have been mostly stagnant at their posts for many years - surely getting in fresh faces that have had a chance for more modern training would help break some of this mentality of "corps over country".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_or_out

[rsynnott]

Patients can be surprisingly abusive to medical staff.

[marcinzm]

>Take medical professionals.

Hell, take minimum wage store clerks.

[rsynnott]

Them too, but I think medical professionals are a better comparison because they’re in a position of trust and authority, like police are (supposed; obviously the ‘trust bit’ is dubious) to be.

[augustt]

The majority of Americans feel protesters' anger is justified https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/documents/monmout....

And by the way, the point of protests is not to leave when people ask you to.

[jariel]

You are not responding to the comment.

It's not surprising that Americans feel 'anger is justified' however, that's very different from saying for example that 'riots' or 'protests past curfew' are supported.

"And by the way, the point of protests is not to leave when people ask you to."

No - it is absolutely not.

Neither you nor I get to decide what is lawful and what is not.

The 'rules' are a 'social contract' that we all get a say in, you don't get more of a say because you want to hold a sign up past 10 pm or block a street.

It's disturbing to read this because I don't think people grasp the real variety in American opinion out there, and what some others might want to 'protests beyond what the community wants them to'. You might find yourself on the other side of the fence.

Not only this - it's counterproductive. Things like 'million man march' do a lot more good than the Watts riots, which are both directly damaging to the community, and probably very damaging to the movement.

If the point is to 'make change' - people are losing tons of allies by stepping outside the bounds of civility. Everyone is fine with signs in parks, and possibly a march through town - beyond that, it's just bad.

[augustt]

Ok you're right, let me just go back to the 60s and inform people doing sit-ins that they have it all mixed up.

> Everyone is fine with signs in parks ...

Yes! You're getting it! The point is for people to NOT be fine with it. The point is to turn heads, to inconvenience, to get people talking, and to demand that attention is placed on injustice.

[ghthor]

All I see is a bunch of emotionally triggered adults throwing a tantrum. Inconveniencing me and suggesting reckless ideas like defending the police doesn't earn any of my respect.

[augustt]

Well if its any inconvenience to you, your comment encouraged me to donate again to the ACLU.

[viklove]

It's ok, from the figures it looks like we don't really need your respect. Continue ignoring the pain and fear that your fellow US citizens live in, and continue defending the actions of the stormtroopers who beat them to death in our streets.

If you don't want to help, just get out of the way.

[8note]

Don't judges and juries decide if things are lawful? If the protesters leave, you'll never find out.

The law is meant to be tested

[marcinzm]

The US constitution includes a bill of rights in part because social contracts are created by the majority to oppress the minority. That's basically human nature. Certain rights are outside the ability of any social contract to restrict to allow minorities protection.

[jariel]

"Certain rights are outside the ability of any social contract to restrict to allow minorities protection."

This is a bold oxymoron:

"The law is the law, except where it is not the law because you have other constitutionally guaranteed laws that enable you to break said laws"

This misunderstanding underlies a lot of the commentary here lamenting police breakup of ostensibly 'legal' protests which are actually, totally illegal.

If the city has a curfew for protesting, that's literally quite lawful in every sense, and you don't have a legal or constitutional right to protest at that point.

I mean, you could take up with the courts.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

I will say that law is not given to us by deity, but rather by the society itself. The protests suggest that the law is no longer within acceptable range for society, but the administrators of the law, for whatever reason, chose not to address it.

Add to that the protests appear to have popular support and the issue of curfew becomes largely irrelevant. I am not arguing legality here.

edit: added not. geez that was bad

[jariel]

"I will say that law is not given to us by deity, but rather by the society itself. "

Yes, that is what a social contract means, we already have that.

"The protests suggest that the law is no longer within acceptable range for society, but the administrators of the law, for whatever reason, chose not to address it."

The 'administrators' are we the voters - not the protestors.

You're advocating anarchy: the protestors get to decide what is lawful and what is not, for whatever arbitrary reason.

It's incredibly naive for people to support extra-judicial action, a lot of which is disruptive and a total transgression of other people's rights, and is sometimes violent.

Consider the next time there is a protest you don't agree with, and they decide that 'the law is not relevant in that case because it's not what the protestors deem appropriate'.

It's the total civil breakdown.

The thread of the 'protesters are above the law logic' is totally unwound and nonsensical.

[gowld]

The courts are quite divided. The whole point of a Constitution is that it pre-empts other laws. Laws that contradict the Constitution are not valid.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1206/curfews

[marcinzm]

Peaceful protests and rallies are generally legally protected by the first amendment. Just because you don't like what some group is saying doesn't mean the police get to illegally attack and disperse them. These rights exists so that minorities can protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority which is exactly what is happening right now.

[jariel]

This is misleading.

You do not have the right to block traffic, march down the street etc. as an expression of your 1st amendment rights. You literally need a permit for most of that.

If the city puts down a curfew, you don't have any '1st Amendment rights' there either.

"doesn't mean the police get to illegally attack and disperse them."

Much of what we are seeing is not a legal expression of 1st Amendment rights at all, in which case breaking it up is not remotely illegal.

Some of it may be though.

Here are the ACLU's guidelines:

[1] https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_pdf_file/kyr_...

[gowld]

The legality of curfews against assembly and petition is absolutely not settled.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1206/curfews

[bluntfang]

>"doesn't mean the police get to illegally attack and disperse them."

>Much of what we are seeing is not a legal expression of 1st Amendment rights at all, in which case breaking it up is not remotely illegal.

Think about what you're doing right now. You're responding to someone saying that cops shouldn't be killing people in the streets for blocking traffic. Your response isn't "cops shouldn't kill people!". It's "what they are doing is illegal".

This about this. Think about what you're doing.

[dang]

Downvoting for disagreement has always been ok on HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314), and a lot of people disagree with police right now, so downvotes are probably to be expected.

[ta17711771]

> Downvoting for disagreement has always been ok on HN

Hard to police, but, to encourage it...?

[ramblenode]

> Edit: Downvotes are intended for discouraging low effort or otherwise poor comments, not to shame people for disagreeing. Whether you like it or not at least half the country supports police, they play an important role in society, and that makes this a discussion worth having.

The reason this is low effort is that your feelings on what the facts might be do not suffice for facts. Why would we want to know your personal guess about how many people support the protests if you have no new information to add? why not just do a Google search?

[ulisesrmzroche]

Your feelings are all wrong. Poll numbers say the majority of Americans support the protests. It’s definitely a low effort and poor comment seeing as you can’t even hit google up.

[pvg]

American demographics are willing to burn and loot

What exactly do you mean by 'American demographics'?

[8note]

The police are happy to kill people with police present. Having police around is also not good