Philly police arrest man carrying.

I've heard police argue some good arguments against being constantly recorded, though. One is that it would reduce their ability to be lenient about minor shit; two, it would mean that lots of everyday interactions with the public which the police had no right to retain, and currently do not record, would now be officially kept recorded and possibly used and abused; three, it would be an incomplete record of events that would be easy to manipulate and place out of context.

I'm not sure they overwhelm the other interests there, but it's worth keeping in mind.

So, the cop can't simply say: "Keep your hands where I can see'em." and peacefully grab the gun without forcing a random dude to kneel before him and, worse yet, restraining the dude?

Way I see it, officer safety does not justify degrading treatment. Many of the things in police standard operating procedure violate basic common decency: Humiliating people who are not criminals should be a major no-no. And being forced to kneel before a cop is humiliating.

Cops shouldn't record all their interactions with the public: That would force them to enforce stupid laws about which they have some discretion. However, the public should be fully entitled to wiretap cops on every encounter, so that if there's some abuse, or overly authoritarian treatment of random folks, the cops can be unceremoniously fired.

edited 18th May '11 3:00:24 AM by SavageHeathen

An incomplete record is better then a fabricated one. A cop can lie through his teeth about what was said or done in an incident and people will believe him just because he's got a badge.

edited 18th May '11 3:10:05 AM by CommandoDude

Oh gee, if only there was a way to instantly tell who was a criminal and who wasn't on sight. Until that's possible, some innocents are going to be subjected to being treated as possible criminals. You can't get away from it.

Each and every time an innocent is subjected to degrading treatment, there should be a mandatory cop firing. At least one of the cops in the encounter should lose his badge, even if it's done purely pour éncourager les autres.

It should take ONE fishy arrest, ONE beating, ONE even vaguely questionable search, to land a bad cop off the police force without compensation.

Each time a search is thrown out in court, the cop should be fired: If it was thrown out, they had no business doing it, and they violated someone's privacy.

edited 18th May '11 3:05:38 AM by SavageHeathen

Police officers aren't omniscient! How are they supposed to tell the innocent from the guilty until they've assessed the situation properly?

Unless someone is posing an immediate threat (and an armed guy who agrees to disarm and doesn't make any hostile move is not posing an immediate threat) violent, degrading or abusive treatment on part of the cop should get his butt fired.

Unless clearly proven otherwise (ie, there's a manhunt and the dude fits your description, or you catch him openly committing a serious crime), the standard should be: You can't approach, you can't stop, you can't restrain, you can't search.

edited 18th May '11 3:08:48 AM by SavageHeathen

Most people have agreed that this particular cop messed up and deserves disciplinary action. But you can't then extend that as a blanket statement over all cases of innocents being mistaken for criminals.

How do you expect them to solve any crimes at all like that? What exactly is so heinous about approaching somebody, anyway?

edited 18th May '11 3:10:53 AM by LoniJay

No, he can't. You never put yourself in a situation where an individual has free hands while you search them or take a weapon from them. Ever.

If you assume that an officer is in the wrong unless proven otherwise, you minimize accidental harm to civil liberties.

It's better to fire a cop for an honest mistake than to leave a privacy violation or an instance of abusive treatment slip.

So, on the off chance a random nut here and there might harm a police officer, innocent people who choose to peacefully exercise their RKBA are required to kneel (degrading) and be restrained (degrading) on each and every police encounter. There's a point where officer safety doesn't really justify whatever bunch of bullshit cops do.

How many instances of degrading treatment are legitimate if they prevent the death of, say, a cop per year? Let's say ten thousand people are subjected to degrading treatment for each cop saved. Would it be really worth it?

edited 18th May '11 3:17:54 AM by SavageHeathen

Only cops in small towns should bother being lenient. Cops don't/shouldn't need bed side manners. Their sole jobs are to make arrests, to protect civilians from unlawful civilians, and to enforce the law.

Either you are trolling, or this is a serious case of Blue-and-Orange Morality. Either way I think I'm wasting my time here.

edited 18th May '11 3:13:54 AM by LoniJay

It is a case of Blue-and-Orange Morality. I can't understand your way of thinking either.

edited 18th May '11 3:16:12 AM by SavageHeathen

My way of thinking? In terms of negative outcomes, being humiliated < being shot. Someone being humiliated is better than someone being dead, and I don't care who is getting either fate.

Except the man getting humiliated was going about his business without hurting anybody, and the guy who would get shot willfully got into a risky profession on the first place.

Unless the cop was part of victimless crimes's enforcement, I don't particularly want him to get shot. But I'd have a cop getting shot over someone getting his rights/dignity violated to protect said cop. After all, the cop signed up for the job, and the civvie was simply going about his business.

edited 18th May '11 3:29:51 AM by SavageHeathen

I agree with Loni, I don't see what's so hard to understand. Worst case scenario if the police can disarm him and then check the legality of the situation: the guy gets arrested until he's found to be innocent, then he is apologised to and let go. No harm done. Worst case scenario if the police can't disarm him: maybe a dead cop and certainly a dead suspect. Two dead people, as opposed to some inconvenience.

What does it matter what profession each person is in? Being shot is still orders of magnitude worse than being a little humiliated.

It's the kneeling that pisses me off. It implies a degree of abject submission that I know for sure would cause me lasting mental trauma, not the disarmament per se.

I mean, I wouldn't mind being disarmed at all, as long as it was done on a respectful way that didn't imply submission. Well, and as long as I'm guaranteed to get my gun back. And as long as the cop doesn't act in an abusive manner throughout the encounter.

I'm not an expert on disarming people, But I'd assume there are much less degrading ways to disarm someone than forcing them to kneel. Maybe they are slightly less safe, but a little bit of safety does not justify an arbitrary amount of degradation.

edited 18th May '11 3:38:59 AM by SavageHeathen

The kneeling isn't about some sort of power trip for the officers.

Surely looks like it. Demands of submission are degrading.

So what? Someone's feelings are going to get hurt? Kneeling is to make sure it takes longer to make a run for it.

edited 18th May '11 3:43:16 AM by ninjaclown

Law enforcement should not subject people to degrading treatment. The kneeling part, which is what I'm objecting to, is to make sure somebody doesn't escape.

Someone escaping does not even threaten the cop: Therefore, it should not be done at all.

edited 18th May '11 3:48:56 AM by SavageHeathen

There are so many things wrong with what you just said, but I'm going to sleep. This is getting stupid.

If the person the police are apprehending is a violent criminal, yes, him/her escaping does threaten people. The people the criminal was trying to kill in the first place, and possible future victims.

Moreover, the whole kneeling-handcuffs-disarmament-search (because they'll search the dude, not only grab the permit) is a blatant way to make sure people don't carry: If you carry, cops will force you to kneel before them like you're their bitch or something each and every time they want to. So don't carry.

It's a sleazy and underhanded way to make people go unarmed: Odds are, if they're going to humiliate you for carrying, in the end you won't carry at all.

It would be much, much more respectful to make the guy say his CCW permit number, age, name and address out loud, Hold him with his hands flat against a surface (get your hands over the squad car/against the wall), and check the data with central. Instead, they force the whole submissive drill from the peaceful gun owner.

Besides, criminals don't open carry: Considering how the cops react to it, it's a surefire way to get in trouble.

edited 18th May '11 3:59:06 AM by SavageHeathen