Appreciate the comment Jason because I think it underlines where I disagree with both you and Radley. Out of three examples of anti-social (but non criminal) behavior I gave above, the person injecting themseves with a needle is actually the one I would probably consider least important for the police to become involved with.
Appreciate the comment Jason because I think it underlines where I disagree with both you and Radley. Out of three examples of anti-social (but non criminal) behavior I gave above, the person injecting themseves with a needle is actually the one I would probably consider least important for the police to become involved with.
I think our difference here come from different conceptions of what we want the police to do. My sense is that your belief is that the police should become involved only when they see actual or likely violations of the law. But I want the police to do more than that. I think the role of the police includes maintain a sense of order and safety in public safety and that doing so may require police to become involved even when no laws have been broken.
Now getting involved doesn't necessarily mean arresting people. In fact, the vast majority of the time in situations where no laws have been broken it won't. But it will mean evaluating people to see if they present a danger to themselves and others. Sometimes that will be enough and the police should just move on once they're satisfied the situation is not a problem. Other times it may mean warning people they need to change their behavior if they want to remain where they are (even if their behavior doesn't technically violate any laws). And sometimes it may mean bringing people temporarily into custody, either for further evaluation or just to cool a situation down, even though the officers don't believe that a law has been violated.
I think that kind of police work is valuable to society, and while I think it's important to make sure it's not abused, it's also important not to punish mistakes in such a way that it prevents officers from engaging in it.
Where do you think the police get the authority to enforce what you want them to enforce?
The police have the same rights as everyone else to approach those they think are acting badly and admonish them or request they change their conduct, but there's no legal authority for a cop to approach the guy talking to himself in a public park and require him to cease doing so. He especially doesn't have any legal authority to use force to compel a change in behavior.
No worries on the delay Jason. Life definitely trumps Substack commenting. :)
Meanwhile, I'd still push back. I think the role of the police goes beyond just enforcing laws to maintaining social order and making people safe in public spaces. In fact, my sense is that this role of the police may be as important to society, as their role investigating and arresting folks who have committed crimes.
I think it's important when folks are behaving ways that scare or disturb others that we have people with both the responsibility and authority to approach folks behaving in this way, to assess whether they truly threaten public order, and to take action if they decide that they do. Now these folks don't necessarily have to be the police (I'm fine with ceding that responsibility to something like a "mobile crisis team") and the action they take certainly doesn't have to be an arrest. In most cases when anti-social behavior is happening that falls short of violating the law (and sometimes even when laws have been broken), the best action is probably just words of warning or connecting people in extremis to services they need.
But I do think it's vital for society that we have people playing this proactive intervention role and that they are accorded both respect and reasonable legal protections. Without people doing so, I think you can end up with the kind of degradation of public spaces that currently affects too much of San Francisco (which I live near) and Vancouver (where my family recently visited).
Now respect and reasonable legal protections doesn't mean a blank check. Abusive behavior by the police should still be prosecuted. I think Chauvin's behavior clearly was way across the line into abuse, and he (and the other officers who assisted rather than stopped him) was justly punished.
But based on the video above, I don't see abusive behavior in the Gonzalez case. I see officers trying to do their best but making mistakes. Now, I wouldn't rule out being convinced otherwise. Perhaps if I had heard the full conversation the officers had with Gonzalez, I would be convinced they should just have moved on. Or perhaps I would be convinced that given the policies in Alameda, they should never have tried to handcuff Gonzalez (but should have waited for social services). Or perhaps if I understood how they were trained, I would be convinced that they should have known that the way they were handling Gonzalez was dangerous and unnecessary.
But I would need to see more evidence to be convinced. And I definitely do worry that inappropriate prosecutions of policy could lead to problems in two ways:
- Police refusing to play the role I described above because of fears that they would prosecuted.
- More people coming to believe that the justice system is biased against the police and reflectively defending them in all circumstance (as they did with Chauvin), even when they are genuinely abusive.
You may think police should have that authority, but they don't. They acted as if they did despite not having it.
Like you, I'd like to see more evidence. I think the difference is the police need show evidence they had a need to use force. They haven't done that. We should have the right to go about our lives without being assaulted by government agents.
Appreciate the comment Jason because I think it underlines where I disagree with both you and Radley. Out of three examples of anti-social (but non criminal) behavior I gave above, the person injecting themseves with a needle is actually the one I would probably consider least important for the police to become involved with.
I think our difference here come from different conceptions of what we want the police to do. My sense is that your belief is that the police should become involved only when they see actual or likely violations of the law. But I want the police to do more than that. I think the role of the police includes maintain a sense of order and safety in public safety and that doing so may require police to become involved even when no laws have been broken.
Now getting involved doesn't necessarily mean arresting people. In fact, the vast majority of the time in situations where no laws have been broken it won't. But it will mean evaluating people to see if they present a danger to themselves and others. Sometimes that will be enough and the police should just move on once they're satisfied the situation is not a problem. Other times it may mean warning people they need to change their behavior if they want to remain where they are (even if their behavior doesn't technically violate any laws). And sometimes it may mean bringing people temporarily into custody, either for further evaluation or just to cool a situation down, even though the officers don't believe that a law has been violated.
I think that kind of police work is valuable to society, and while I think it's important to make sure it's not abused, it's also important not to punish mistakes in such a way that it prevents officers from engaging in it.
Where do you think the police get the authority to enforce what you want them to enforce?
The police have the same rights as everyone else to approach those they think are acting badly and admonish them or request they change their conduct, but there's no legal authority for a cop to approach the guy talking to himself in a public park and require him to cease doing so. He especially doesn't have any legal authority to use force to compel a change in behavior.
My apologies on the delay in responding.
No worries on the delay Jason. Life definitely trumps Substack commenting. :)
Meanwhile, I'd still push back. I think the role of the police goes beyond just enforcing laws to maintaining social order and making people safe in public spaces. In fact, my sense is that this role of the police may be as important to society, as their role investigating and arresting folks who have committed crimes.
I think it's important when folks are behaving ways that scare or disturb others that we have people with both the responsibility and authority to approach folks behaving in this way, to assess whether they truly threaten public order, and to take action if they decide that they do. Now these folks don't necessarily have to be the police (I'm fine with ceding that responsibility to something like a "mobile crisis team") and the action they take certainly doesn't have to be an arrest. In most cases when anti-social behavior is happening that falls short of violating the law (and sometimes even when laws have been broken), the best action is probably just words of warning or connecting people in extremis to services they need.
But I do think it's vital for society that we have people playing this proactive intervention role and that they are accorded both respect and reasonable legal protections. Without people doing so, I think you can end up with the kind of degradation of public spaces that currently affects too much of San Francisco (which I live near) and Vancouver (where my family recently visited).
Now respect and reasonable legal protections doesn't mean a blank check. Abusive behavior by the police should still be prosecuted. I think Chauvin's behavior clearly was way across the line into abuse, and he (and the other officers who assisted rather than stopped him) was justly punished.
But based on the video above, I don't see abusive behavior in the Gonzalez case. I see officers trying to do their best but making mistakes. Now, I wouldn't rule out being convinced otherwise. Perhaps if I had heard the full conversation the officers had with Gonzalez, I would be convinced they should just have moved on. Or perhaps I would be convinced that given the policies in Alameda, they should never have tried to handcuff Gonzalez (but should have waited for social services). Or perhaps if I understood how they were trained, I would be convinced that they should have known that the way they were handling Gonzalez was dangerous and unnecessary.
But I would need to see more evidence to be convinced. And I definitely do worry that inappropriate prosecutions of policy could lead to problems in two ways:
- Police refusing to play the role I described above because of fears that they would prosecuted.
- More people coming to believe that the justice system is biased against the police and reflectively defending them in all circumstance (as they did with Chauvin), even when they are genuinely abusive.
You may think police should have that authority, but they don't. They acted as if they did despite not having it.
Like you, I'd like to see more evidence. I think the difference is the police need show evidence they had a need to use force. They haven't done that. We should have the right to go about our lives without being assaulted by government agents.