Police Intimidate Me

JD430, that was an awesome post, and I for one agree with you completely. I too have been awed by the level of humility and humanity I’ve seen in some of the professional dangerous men I’ve met.

Without going into details I, like a lot of people who have problems with the police, have had an experience with our legal system which I see as totally uncalled for and degrading and which caused a severe disruption in my life. I’m not a dangerous guy, I have no criminal record and the thing they claimed I did wasn’t violent, so while I wouldn’t say I was “brutalized” (Run Ronnie Run) I would say that I didn’t deserve to be treated the way I was.

I just want everyone to have the strength and moral fortitude that it sounds like JD430 has to be able to treat everyone with the respect they deserve.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group. [/quote]

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that.
Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response.

Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police. It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more
common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that. Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response.

Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police. It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now. [/quote]

I can’t help but wonder why we continue to let people into the country who form these “super gangs” and “heavily armed terrorist” organizations.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Actually, I’ve had quite a few classes in statistics. They were an undergraduate requirement. They also happen to be a job requirement. So rather than being an arrogant snob, you could try condescending to my level of intelligence and explaining yourself.
[/quote]

Intelligence

Performance

Intelligence => Performance

Still with me?

I can tell you did some stats. Enough to use words that you don’t really know to describe concepts that you don’t really understand. Talking about correlation does not equal causation. Ridiculous. Of course, you probably think what I just said is wrong, which will only reinforce my belief that you have only the most superficial understanding of the use of stats in behavioural sciences.

From my perspective, you’re the one being arrogant. You seem to know very little about the subject, but you insist on acting like an expert. After a few undergraduate stats classes! And you aren’t joking?

[quote]
While we’re on the subject of g, and since you seem to be into psychometrics, don’t psychometricians believe in a racial difference in IQ as well, or that idea too outrageous for you? If so, then by extension of your logic, people of lower-IQ correlated ethnicities are more immoral. I’d rather not believe that, and I’m sure you wouldn’t either. So be careful how far you take psychometrics. [/quote]

The race question you pose is so unrelated to this thread that it’s unbelievable you’d even mention it. And it is not a psychometric issue, it’s a social issue, and one that has been pretty much resolved, as far as I’m concerned.

Nevertheless, job performance and morality are not the same thing. You can be corrupt, but otherwise perform your job well. The officers in this video, and others I’ve seen, do not appear to be doing their jobs effectively. Their morality is not the issue, as far as I’m concerned.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that.
Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response. Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police. It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more
common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now. [/quote]

Cheers JD, I thought you’d fallen off the face of the earth. Yeah, this is an issue I struggle with. I hated being on campus and watching the cops roll through with AR’s, while I couldn’t carry my XD concealed. Fortunately I am graduating Saturday, so the school’s unconstitutional policy(both state and federal) can’t touch me until I go back for law school. What finally turned me on to law school was getting messed with by a cop here.

In any case, I too would like cops armed to the teeth. Last year we lost our first cop in the city’s history because he comfronted a guy carrying both an M1A and an AK. The cop merely had his Glock. The problem is that when people get toys they want to play with them. I want cops to be trained hard and for them to get to go to all sorts of sexy military-style schools. But since they are being used to do things I don’t believe they should be doing, I struggle with being comfortable with them being armed better than me.

Any ideas how we could correct this?

mike

[quote]JD430 wrote:
I feel safe assuming that most of you guys posting your concerns here are good people(if you are not, I couldn’t give a fuck about your opinion).
[/quote]

Hey JD. I agree with almost everything you said. The good news is that a lot of effort is being made to improve the recruitment and selection process in many places.

As for the negativity thing, I totally hear you. I very strongly considered police work as a career, but it was the constant negativity that really made me choose not to. I’m very grateful to everyone that is willing to face it in order for society to work.

But I have to tell you, the quote above terrifies me. Separating the world into “good guys” and “bad guys” is unrealistic, and invariably results in the “bad guys” being dehumanized.

I see how it may be necessary to do this in order to maintain mental health, but I suspect that it’s this very line of thinking that leads to a lot of the abuses committed by police. Like you mention, though, I would agree that this comes down to a lack of support on top of poor selection.

All the best

[quote]I can tell you did some stats. Enough to use words that you don’t really know to describe concepts that you don’t really understand. Talking about correlation does not equal causation. Ridiculous.

Of course, you probably think what I just said is wrong, which will only reinforce my belief that you have only the most superficial understanding of the use of stats in behavioural sciences.[/quote]

Intelligence is a predictor of performance. Can you measure intelligence in a meaningful way? Psychometricians don’t appear to have a working definition on what “intelligence” even is.

You’ve got Spearman’s concept of ‘g’, which Raven matrices and other IQ tests supposedly measure, and then you have Gardner’s multiple intelligences, which is nothing more than a theory at this point, as well as several other theories floating around.

So for you to even use the term “intelligence” probably means that you’re talking out of your ass. Until further notice, I’ll have to regard psychometrics as a pseudo-science, as it doesn’t seem to have working definitions for its terms and doesn’t seem to have benefited humanity in any tangible form, unlike real sciences such as math, physics, biology, etc.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
I can tell you did some stats. Enough to use words that you don’t really know to describe concepts that you don’t really understand. Talking about correlation does not equal causation. Ridiculous. Of course, you probably think what I just said is wrong, which will only reinforce my belief that you have only the most superficial understanding of the use of stats in behavioural sciences.

Intelligence is a predictor of performance. Can you measure intelligence in a meaningful way? Psychometricians don’t appear to have a working definition on what “intelligence” even is. You’ve got Spearman’s concept of ‘g’, which Raven matrices and other IQ tests supposedly measure, and then you have Gardner’s multiple intelligences, which is nothing more than a theory at this point, as well as several other theories floating around.

So for you to even use the term “intelligence” probably means that you’re talking out of your ass. Until further notice, I’ll have to regard psychometrics as a pseudo-science, as it doesn’t seem to have working definitions for its terms and doesn’t seem to have benefited humanity in any tangible form, unlike real sciences such as math, physics, biology, etc. [/quote]

You can criticize the extant definitians of intelligence all you want, but measure that tap into [i]g[/g] are reliable, show convergent validity, and criterion-related validity. Moreover, they predict perormance better than anything else. Go ahead and point out the short-comings, it doesn’t make your arguments any less wrong.

As for benefiting humanity, pure ignorance. Organizations that do a better job in selection have better performing employees. It’s not complicated. This goes for police forces as well, which is why they now routinely hire consultants.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
JD430 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that. Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response.

Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police. It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now.

I can’t help but wonder why we continue to let people into the country who form these “super gangs” and “heavily armed terrorist” organizations.
[/quote]

Me too.

If you read my earlier post and my points about corrupt political bastards, that answers our question.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Really smart interesting stuff.
[/quote]

Good post, it’s nice to get the point of view of someone who has been on both sides.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
JD430 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that.

Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response. Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police.

It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now.

Cheers JD, I thought you’d fallen off the face of the earth. Yeah, this is an issue I struggle with. I hated being on campus and watching the cops roll through with AR’s, while I couldn’t carry my XD concealed.

Fortunately I am graduating Saturday, so the school’s unconstitutional policy(both state and federal) can’t touch me until I go back for law school. What finally turned me on to law school was getting messed with by a cop here.

In any case, I too would like cops armed to the teeth. Last year we lost our first cop in the city’s history because he comfronted a guy carrying both an M1A and an AK. The cop merely had his Glock.

The problem is that when people get toys they want to play with them. I want cops to be trained hard and for them to get to go to all sorts of sexy military-style schools. But since they are being used to do things I don’t believe they should be doing, I struggle with being comfortable with them being armed better than me.

Any ideas how we could correct this?

mike [/quote]

Im out here. I lurk often enough but am otherwise busy. Honestly, it is frustrating to engage some of these folks in conversation anyway.

You know where I stand. I have no problem with the civilian populace being as well armed as the police. It is a requirement of free people to be able and ready to defend themselves.

That has nothing to do with your grandfather’s hunting muzzle loader. Besides,the arms don’t make the warrior. I know from your writings and military service that you understand this. However, because you and I have these beliefs does not mean the political machine is going to see it our way. In fact, we have plenty of reasons to believe the opposite.

If you are talking about using the police to enforce laws you disagree with, I don’t know what to tell you. Im guessing you are talking about the way some drug laws are enforced, the government seizure of personal property for greed and on and on.

The police will always be responsible for the enforcement of the government’s will. The question becomes at what point does a government slide into the realm of oppression. It seems we’re going that way. If anything, I can tell you to take some heart in the fact that a good number of the best cops that I know are aware of this and try to act accordingly(ie. with respect for the rights of those we serve).

Good luck in law school. Im sure you will follow in the fine tradition of real American legal scholarship and not the perverted mess that that profession has become.

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:

But I have to tell you, the quote above terrifies me. Separating the world into “good guys” and “bad guys” is unrealistic, and invariably results in the “bad guys” being dehumanized.

I see how it may be necessary to do this in order to maintain mental health, but I suspect that it’s this very line of thinking that leads to a lot of the abuses committed by police. Like you mention, though, I would agree that this comes down to a lack of support on top of poor selection.

All the best[/quote]

Ahhh. That shouldn’t terrify you. That is moral clarity. The question is how does one set their filter for what is a good person. Some bad people need to be dehumanized, otherwise you cant do what needs to be done to them. Fortunately, the vast majority of people don’t fit this description.

Honestly, I am flawed enough myself and accept plenty of mistakes in a person’s life to still view them as someone who generally means to do good.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Police operate in a system that is built to err on the side of criminal defendant…

[/quote]

Not in the US.

In European countries where the systems actually proudly err on the side of the alleged defendants cops act differently.

And before you go off on a tangent, no European prosecutor has the rights an American DA has and no European prosecutor can pile NS charge after BS charge on a defendant until plea bargaining seems like a good idea.

No Rico, no consecutive sentences, no plea bargaining, no mandatory minimums as you would understand it, no “three strikes and you´re out” laws…

Plus the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners.

So either the US citizens are all OG´s, or the American justice system is anything but rigged in favor of defendants.

Which leads us to the next point that the “stress” of American cops can hardly stem from the US justice system, unless of course the blatant unfairness of the US justice system makes a lot of people see cops as enemies.

But that would be quite the opposite of what you argued.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that.
Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response.

Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police. It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more
common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now. [/quote]

I disagree.

In Austria we have the “Schutzpolizei” the “protect and serve” kind that does traffic controls, secures the crossings where kids go to school in the mornings etc.

Then we have the commando police who does the dirty work.

It really helps if the first does not even try to do the job of the latter because the inevitably fuck up.

[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

Police operate in a system that is built to err on the side of criminal defendant…

Not in the US.

In European countries where the systems actually proudly err on the side of the alleged defendants cops act differently.

And before you go off on a tangent, no European prosecutor has the rights an American DA has and no European prosecutor can pile NS charge after BS charge on a defendant until plea bargaining seems like a good idea.

No Rico, no consecutive sentences, no plea bargaining, no mandatory minimums as you would understand it, no “three strikes and you´re out” laws…

Plus the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners.

So either the US citizens are all OG´s, or the American justice system is anything but rigged in favor of defendants.

Which leads us to the next point that the “stress” of American cops can hardly stem from the US justice system, unless of course the blatant unfairness of the US justice system makes a lot of people see cops as enemies.

But that would be quite the opposite of what you argued.
[/quote]

Great post.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Jesus there is a lot of stupid things being posted here.

Every once and a while this topic comes up in various forms and I stop lurking and try to explain a few things(usually to my frustration, but whatever).

I am a cop of some years experience. I also am in a unique position to comment on this stuff as part of my duties are to train other cops so they don’t get killed(or kill the wrong person).

First let me address the idea of feeling intimidated by the police. If you feel intimidated because the cop was physically impressive, carried himself with military bearing and clearly gave the impression that he would kill you if you tried to kill him, this is a good thing. This is how cops go home at the end of the shift. If you feel intimidated by his mere presence, this may be a sign of some ego problem on your part. Personally, I feel our weakness as a culture and the way we socialize men now has lead to a lot of the problems people get in to when dealing with the police. The old school was that the police were in charge and you respected them for this. When you grew up in the depression or stormed the beaches of Normandy, listening to what a cop told you to do for a few minutes was not that tough.

That does not mean he has the right to be impolite to you(provided you don’t set an ungentlemanly tone up front). My rule has always been that an officer should start off with a very high level of respect toward whoever you are contacting. I teach other cops this. Just like the suspect determines how much force I will use on him, so it goes with the give-and-take of respect.

Police should be disciplined, honorable warriors. I know some of you are chuckling because that is the exact opposite of a lot of what you see. Sadly, I have to agree. Police hiring has always been a mess and in most places, training is not much better. The vast majority of police, in my experience, do not take their job seriously enough. If they did, they couldn’t possibly be out of shape, uneducated about their profession and generally unable to handle conflict at all levels. If any of you have ever had the pleasure to know truly dangerous, yet still honorable men, you know that they have a humbleness and respectfulness about them that is striking. That in itself would eliminate many of our perception problems.

I feel safe assuming that most of you guys posting your concerns here are good people(if you are not, I couldn’t give a fuck about your opinion). It is hard for me to explain this to you unless you live in our world, but we see a lot of ugliness. More than any person ever possibly could in their life(or many lifetimes for that matter) under most circumstances. You might want to try and disagree, but I know I am right because I have lived on both sides of the fence. That much negativity effects a person, subconsciously at least. If a cop is a professional, they should battle constantly to not let such forces overwhelm them but it is a difficult road to walk. Trust me.

I have spoken with Mikeyali at some length about the role of police in our society and I come from the same uncompromising libertarian school of thought that he does. I believe wholeheartedly that the police are overused in our society. It is a reflection of a larger reliance on government than has ever existed in our country’s history. I can’t even begin to tell you the things we get called for. 80% of it should be handled by the individual citizen or by cooperation among neighbors. Instead, they throw all of their individualism out and expect the government via the police to solve their issue.

The most severe issue is a largely corrupt and ever-increasing governmental monster using the police to enforce the massive number of bullshit laws that are expanded on every day. I doubt any of you would have a problem with us if we fought gang members and other murderous thugs, caught thieves and prosecuted rapists. These basic laws must be enforced so that a society can thrive. However, we are all too often are used to close municipal budget gaps with traffic tickets or enforce a million other repressive regulations on individual freedom at the behest of idiots who don’t even begin to understand what America should be about.

As an aside, I for one don’t distrust the American populace and could never seek to disarm lawful people. Quite the opposite. More decent armed people make my job easier.
Sometimes gun owners are surprised by how supportive I am of their rights and it builds a tremendous trust between us. Try and tell that to many of our legislators.

As a final word, let me say that don’t construe any of this to be an apology for or
a damnation of my profession. I can’t imagine myself doing anything else, and done right, I believe it is God’s work as much as anything on the planet. The benefit of the doubt should still go to the police if they are acting in good faith, such as the NYPD cops who were just rightfully acquitted.

I am fairly certain that our society is destroying itself at all levels. If you want to skyrocket it to oblivion, neuter the police a little faster than 40 or 50 years of the anti-society gangsters have already managed.

I can’t think of much more to add.

[/quote]

Good post except for the NYPD cops. They used massively excessive force and should be held accountable. There is no reason for that guy to be dead right now.

[quote]orion wrote:

Not in the US.[/quote]

Incorrect. We have constitutional amendments addressing the issues and the rule of lenity. Habeas corpus. Unanimous jury verdicts (largely). And that is just for starters.

[quote]In European countries where the systems actually proudly err on the side of the alleged defendants cops act differently.

And before you go off on a tangent, no European prosecutor has the rights an American DA has and no European prosecutor can pile NS charge after BS charge on a defendant until plea bargaining seems like a good idea.[/quote]

This is bad logic - if Europe errs more on the side of criminal defendant, that doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t at all.

Moreover, “piling up charges” is what criminal activity does - every act that breaks the law is worthy of punishment. If that bothers you - who cares?

This statistic doesn’t speak to the issue of whether the system is built to err on the side of the criminal defendant. What that statistic tells you is that we put more people in jail - it says little about whether the laws err on the side of the defendant.

This statement is pure Orion hyperbole - and misses the point. The system isn’t “rigged” in favor of one outcome or the other, it is a matter of erring on one side or the other. No system should be “rigged” - what matters are whether there are deliberate safeguards in place to err on the side of defendants. In America, we have them. If another country has more safeguards, no problem, but that doesn’t mean America has none.

If these weren’t in place in America, per your complaints, predictable critics like you wouldn’t be clamoring to extend these rights to non-citizen terrorists. You are making arguments out of two inconsistent mouths - if our defendant’s rights were no good (“anything but rigged in favor of the defendant”), you wouldn’t be peeing your pants to grant these “worthless” rights to terrorists.

[quote]Which leads us to the next point that the “stress” of American cops can hardly stem from the US justice system, unless of course the blatant unfairness of the US justice system makes a lot of people see cops as enemies.

But that would be quite the opposite of what you argued.[/quote]

The US justice system tries to balance law-and-order versus a presumption of innocence - in the real world, that is a hard line, and police, charged with a heavy responsibility, have to make hard choices in real time.

They have “stress” because they have a job to do, and the system is designed to slow them down. And that is ok - the system should do that to an extent, we want that. That doesn’t mean that their job isn’t tough as a result.

[quote]orion wrote:
JD430 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think the cops made a mistake when they went from Peace Officer to a Para military group.

I can’t agree with this at all. I understand that the growing employment of SWAT teams, military black rifles and generalized military training among police circles has lead to some concern. However, Barney Fife can’t do this job anymore. Gangs are truly out of control in this country but most people don’t realize that.
Increasingly aggressive police tactics have been the proper response.

Criminal tactics have evolved and changed over the last couple of decades. 40 years ago, the thought of confronting heavily armed terrorists was not anywhere in the realm of reality for the police. It is now. More “mundane” threats like much more
common active shooter events and the rise of super-gangs have required an adjustment by law enforcement.

Honestly, we are still extremely behind the curve. The police should probably be training much more aggressively than they are now.

I disagree.

In Austria we have the “Schutzpolizei” the “protect and serve” kind that does traffic controls, secures the crossings where kids go to school in the mornings etc.

Then we have the commando police who does the dirty work.

It really helps if the first does not even try to do the job of the latter because the inevitably fuck up.

[/quote]

The US is in a strange position because of the Posse Commitatus Act which forbids the US of the military against US citizens. There has to be a very clear separation so the police, even at the local and state level, wind up having to handle very dangerous situations. Although I have never been there, it is my understanding that America is a much larger and more violent place than Austria and requires a much different system to respond.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
orion wrote:

Not in the US.

Incorrect. We have constitutional amendments addressing the issues and the rule of lenity. Habeas corpus. Unanimous jury verdicts (largely). And that is just for starters.

In European countries where the systems actually proudly err on the side of the alleged defendants cops act differently.

And before you go off on a tangent, no European prosecutor has the rights an American DA has and no European prosecutor can pile NS charge after BS charge on a defendant until plea bargaining seems like a good idea.

This is bad logic - if Europe errs more on the side of criminal defendant, that doesn’t mean that the US doesn’t at all.

Moreover, “piling up charges” is what criminal activity does - every act that breaks the law is worthy of punishment. If that bothers you - who cares?

Plus the US has 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds prisoners.

This statistic doesn’t speak to the issue of whether the system is built to err on the side of the criminal defendant. What that statistic tells you is that we put more people in jail - it says little about whether the laws err on the side of the defendant.

So either the US citizens are all OG´s, or the American justice system is anything but rigged in favor of defendants.

This statement is pure Orion hyperbole - and misses the point. The system isn’t “rigged” in favor of one outcome or the other, it is a matter of erring on one side or the other. No system should be “rigged” - what matters are whether there are deliberate safeguards in place to err on the side of defendants. In America, we have them. If another country has more safeguards, no problem, but that doesn’t mean America has none.

If these weren’t in place in America, per your complaints, predictable critics like you wouldn’t be clamoring to extend these rights to non-citizen terrorists. You are making arguments out of two inconsistent mouths - if our defendant’s rights were no good (“anything but rigged in favor of the defendant”), you wouldn’t be peeing your pants to grant these “worthless” rights to terrorists.

Which leads us to the next point that the “stress” of American cops can hardly stem from the US justice system, unless of course the blatant unfairness of the US justice system makes a lot of people see cops as enemies.

But that would be quite the opposite of what you argued.

The US justice system tries to balance law-and-order versus a presumption of innocence - in the real world, that is a hard line, and police, charged with a heavy responsibility, have to make hard choices in real time.

They have “stress” because they have a job to do, and the system is designed to slow them down. And that is ok - the system should do that to an extent, we want that. That doesn’t mean that their job isn’t tough as a result.[/quote]

Nice backpedaling.

So as long as we have established that the US is the country where defendants have a really tough time compared to other countries that call themselves “democracies”, we can safely draw the conclusion that the few choices said defendants have left can hardly be a source of frustation for American cops.

Unless of course European cops handle that kind of stress wayyyyy better. Or they have a different idea of what it means to be a cop.

I don´t know what it is, but it cannot be a justice system that errs on the side of caution.

Then, if they cannot handle the pressure they should get the fuck out of their jobs. Nobody is putting a gun to their heads.

[quote]JD430 wrote:
Although I have never been there, it is my understanding that America is a much larger and more violent place than Austria and requires a much different system to respond. [/quote]

The US is a less egalitarian society.