
Nashville police chief shares message, responds to questions - whiddershins
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2014/12/26/nashville-police-chief-shares-message-responds-to-questions/20914171/
======
sfeng
He missed the core point that the freedom to protest is important in and of
itself. Whether you agree with the topic being protested or not, we should all
support our right to protest in a peaceful way without fear of a
disproportionate response by law enforcement.

I can say that I am never more proud of our police forces than when I see them
maintain their control and treat people with respect in the face of
provocation. That ability to say in command of oneself even when provoked is a
core part of maturity and something to be lauded. As he said, it's a sign of a
professional.

The role of the police is to prevent violence. That's what makes a community
safe. It sounds like the letter-writer, on the other hand, is looking for an
agent of his or her frustration. Someone to lash out at the protestors because
he or she legally can't. A community where the police can attack people with
impunity is about as far from safe as one can get. It seems somewhat obvious,
but a safe community is one where no one is attacking anyone.

~~~
dubfan
The right to peaceably assemble shouldn't supersede the right for citizens to
go about their business. The protests crossed that line when they started
shutting down freeways and transit. The only difference between that and
terrorism is the rhetoric.

~~~
thaumaturgy
Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn't
supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble. Protesting, marching,
and occasionally inconveniencing other people is an integral part of a free
society.

I'm not fond of the protesters' decision to block freeways (I'm thinking
specifically of the incident in southern California, I wasn't aware of one in
Tennessee). I wouldn't do that, and I would discourage other people from doing
that.

I might support making the obstruction of major highways into a ticketable
offense and gently but firmly removing any protesters there. But, there's no
way I would qualify that as "terrorism", and anybody that argued that it was
would move me further towards supporting protests on highways.

The social pendulum in the U.S. has swung far too far towards an authoritarian
police state. Let's not push it farther by declaring acts of peaceful protest
to be "terrorism", no matter how inconvenient they are.

~~~
cubano
_Conversely, the right for citizens to go about their business shouldn 't
supersede the right for citizens to peaceably assemble_

Well hold on there...the "right to assemble" is granted _as long as the
overall public well-being isn 't put in jeopardy_

ie the cant-shout-fire-in-a-crowded-theater chestnut.

Isn't it possible that by blocking the "major highways", that perhaps
emergency vehicles could be prevented from doing their life-saving deeds?

~~~
jleader
The "major highways" in my city are routinely shut down for half a day or more
for any and all of the following:

\- the President is in town, and he and the 200+ vehicles in his entourage
want to go from point A to point B

\- a funeral for any firefighter or policeman is being held, and the funeral
party wants to travel from the cathedral to the cemetery

\- a museum wants to move an artwork (a big hunk of stone) from a quarry to
their facility, or a space shuttle orbiter from the airport to their facility
(I think the orbiter only shut down city streets, not freeways)

\- a hockey team won their league championship, and the company that owns the
team wants to hold a celebratory parade (one of our basketball teams used to
do the same, back when they used to win championships)

\- the police department want to hold a staged "counter terrorism" exercise
(complete with stunt coordinator, director, and a giant video screen scrolling
the credits for the audience of VIPs) in the center of downtown mid-day on a
weekday.

Not to mention that emergency vehicles generally only travel a short distance,
and so don't bother with the freeways unless the emergency is actually on the
freeway.

~~~
kbenson
These all sound like things a permit was applied for, or at least the action
was worked out in advance. Similarly, a protest should be able to do the same.
But any of these listed actions, if attempting without clearing it with the
controlling interests, would be cause for concern in my opinion.

The difference is that if a resource is known to be unavailable for a time,
people can plan accordingly.

~~~
ceejayoz
How likely do you think it is that the city would issue a permit for a protest
on a highway?

~~~
kbenson
It should be just as likely as for a parade. If not, that seems like something
that should be taken to the courts. Everyone could benefit from some clarity
in the law.

~~~
wpietri
This is fine in theory, but it doesn't demonstrate much understanding of the
reality.

Protests are time-critical and often ad hoc. Bureaucracies that don't like
something have endless opportunities to raise barriers, delay, and deny for
trivial reasons. Lawsuits are expensive and slow, especially when opponents,
like governments, already have lawyers on salary.

It's implausible to expect a loose group of protesters to file for permits,
fail repeatedly at dealing with bureaucracy, fund a lawsuit, spend months or
years pushing for it, win, and then keep going back to the judge until
meaningful reform is accomplished. Especially when those protesters are upset
because they think the government is fundamentally biased against them.

Your offered approach is entirely reasonable, but entirely likely to bias
things strongly in favor of the the status quo.

~~~
kbenson
Then maybe an ad-hoc time-critical gathering shouldn't be on freeways in
certain locations (sincere, not trying to beg-the-question)? Gathering in a
location that presents a danger to themselves seems like the ideal situation
where we need to examine it closely and not make blanket statements as to
whether it is okay or not.

I'm not really espousing a particular position, just that we should think
critically about this and realize that the act of using a freeway for a parade
and for protest aren't always all that similar (but they may be, it really
depends).

~~~
wpietri
From the point of view of the 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech and
peaceable assembly, I think they should be treated as equivalent. Both are
political speech, and the government must not favor pro-status-quo speech
(like a 4th of July parade) over anti-status-quo speech (like a protest
march).

Indeed, if they're going to favor one, I'd rather it be the anti-status-quo
speech. The US is founded on the notion that we are always seeking a more
perfect union. The reason the Great Seal [1] has an unfinished pyramid because
we should never think we are done.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States)

~~~
kbenson
I don't disagree with this, it's actually a portion of the point I was trying
to make. That is, _all other things equal_ , they should be equivalent. It's
the "other things" here which may make the results different, and I'm not sure
that's a bad thing.

For example, consider a parade scheduled from 11 AM to 1 PM on Sunday, known
well in advance, and an impromptu protest that really gets way at some random
point in the afternoon, most people didn't know about, and causes logistical
problems for many people. I value and appreciate the need for both, but I also
understand and support the police trying to contain and in some cases disperse
(peacefully!) the second. Indeed, the anti-establishment bent the protests
often have usually benefits from some police presence, IMO. It's a better
story and reaches more ears.

------
jobu
_" It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to
the discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make
an informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our
opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given
consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to
all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original
thoughts."_

I've heard this sentiment before, but never so well written.

~~~
JoelSutherland
I love _four sides_ as an alternative to _both sides_.

~~~
codyb
One of my final professors in college taught us to ensure that when looking at
a position to examine both sides of every side, and if we want to be very
thorough, to look at both sides of both sides of either side.

It's a lesson that has stuck well and has helped me maintain perspective in a
wide variety of situations.

The old adage (I believe from the ancient Asian philosophies of Taoism and
Zen) "Think thrice before you speak, and then only speak if you have thrice
concluded it is worth hearing" is another way to keep yourself in check at
times. How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my
thought process!

~~~
rokhayakebe
_How many times have I wanted to speak and realized some folly in my thought
process_

Most Talking is the output of a reflex, whereas it should be the output of
reasoning.

------
sriram_sun
Here is another gem _" It is somewhat perplexing when children are injected
into the conversation as an attempt to bolster a position or as an attempt to
thwart the position of another."_ I was hesitant to read this at first as it
had nothing to do with programming. However, I am glad I did. I would
recommend the HN community to read both the mail and the response. The
response was well thought out, organized and calls out a few biases we carry
around.

~~~
V7Theory
[http://www.newyorker.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/davidson...](http://www.newyorker.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/01/davidson-obama-guns.jpg)

~~~
MBCook
Can you provide some context as to why you think this picture is a good
example of using children as rhetoric instead of being a reasonable inclusion?

For example if it was a bill to increase funding to elementary schools having
the kids there for the photo-op seems fair.

From the filename this seems to be on a gun bill, but I don't have enough
information to understand your point (unless it's simply "Obama's done it",
which is true of just about every politician).

~~~
JonathonW
The context: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/president-obama-
an...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/01/16/president-obama-announces-
new-measures-prevent-gun-violence)

Yes, it was on a gun bill; the children are apparently kids who wrote the
President letters regarding gun violence and school safety after the Sandy
Hook school shootings.

------
smtddr
Be sure to read the whole post, as well as the email chain below it.

This was part of a complaint email sent to him:

 _> >I wanted to send you this email to express my frustration and outrage at
how the situation of these protesters is being handled in Nashville. The first
night protesters marched here after the incidents in Ferguson they never
should have been allowed to shut down the interstate. Instead of at least
threatening to arrest them, they were served coffee and hot chocolate._

This is how you deal with protests. Good job Nashville police; much respect.
My own frustration lies with whoever sent this complaint.

~~~
sriram_sun
Where are the email chains? I don't see any other emails on the tennessean's
website.

~~~
smtddr
Hmm, I the article linked here has 'em in my browser...
[http://i.imgur.com/oMBV6K5.png](http://i.imgur.com/oMBV6K5.png)

~~~
sriram_sun
I parsed "email chains" as emails _in addition_ to the original complaint and
the response.

~~~
smtddr
sorry, I removed the "s" from "email chains" now.

------
vertis
Any time the police are forced to go arresting people for protesting they've
failed a little bit. This is especially true when the protests are about
police.

Granted there are times when they are left with no choice, but if there is a
strong relationship established between the protesters and the police, such
that the protesters believe that the police understand their concerns, how
much less likely does this become?

~~~
smtddr
One could also argue that there was an earlier failure(s) of the system if
people reach the point of having to protest to feel like they're being heard.
So the protestors already see the police as yet another force trying to
silence them which definitely strains that relationship. I think the issue
here is that the protestors don't want to talk to police; they want to talk to
the political/legal/social people in power to listen to their complaints. So
the police are seen like a 3rd-party summoned by the people in power to stop
the protestors and the situation is worse when the protests are about the
police itself.

~~~
jschwartzi
If the police were to start mass-arresting protesters, then that coupled with
this situation could actually significantly reduce safety. Mobs are organic,
and a single misunderstanding could easily lead to chaos.

------
femto
> The police are merely a representative of a government formed by the people
> for the people—for all people

Peelian Principles [1] explicitly say that the police force is not
representing the government, as that's the job of the military. Firstly, the
police force are citizens in uniform and part of the local community. The
police are explicitly in place so the military can stay out of the community.

Militarised police forces around the world would do well to keep in mind that
they are making themselves redundant, since if the police are
indistinguishable from the military, they might as well be done away with and
replaced by the military.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_Principles)

~~~
danbruc
The word government is not the best choice, it should probably be state, not
at last because governments come and go while the state stays. But in essence
the statement is correct - policy and military enforce the laws on behalf of
the citizens, the police to the inside of the state, the military to the
outside.

~~~
femto
I respectfully disagree with the military=outside, police=inside distinction.
For example, nations use the military internally in times of emergency, with
the imposition of martial law. Similarly, police delegations get sent overseas
on UN missions.

In my mind, the distinction is consent and source of authority. The military
works by imposing rule, the definition of rule coming from a higher level. The
police work by enforcing behaviour, as defined by the community they are
policing.

Granted that the definition of community is subjective. My argument is the
definition of "community" should be the smallest one possible that allows a
positive outcome in the current situation. For example in a noise complaint,
the police could appeal to a sense of right, based on the expectations of
people in the street. The law wouldn't even come into it, as that is something
from "outside". Only if that's unsuccessful would the police have to broaden
the definition of community to include statutes and external influences.

\----

Edit: I'd also add that ultimately, the military is not bound by the law.
Their final brief is "get the job done" and they will answer for war crimes if
they stuff up.

------
KayEss
When did the plural for "person" become "persons" instead of "people"? Is this
just some weird Americanism, or is there a specific difference in police
jargon?

~~~
dkokelley
You seem to be correct in that law enforcement uses 'persons' over 'people'
more often. [1] I'm not entirely sure where the distinction comes from, but
language can be such a funny thing.

[1] [http://grammarist.com/usage/people-
persons/](http://grammarist.com/usage/people-persons/)

~~~
KayEss
Strange how I'd never noticed "missing persons" as being an odd construct
before. I guess I'd just heard it so often I wasn't really aware of how the
phrase was constructed.

------
awjr
His response email is exceptional: "As imperfect humans, we have a tendency to
limit our association with other persons to those persons who are most like
us. Unfortunately, there is even more of a human tendency to stay within our
comfort zone by further narrowing those associations to those persons who
share our thoughts and opinions. By doing this we can avoid giving
consideration to thoughts and ideas different than our own. This would make us
uncomfortable. By considering only the thoughts and ideas we are in agreement
with, we stay in our comfort zone. Our own biases get reinforced and reflected
back at us leaving no room for any opinion but our own. By doing this, we
often convince ourselves that the majority of the world shares opinion and
that anyone with another opinion is, obviously, wrong.

It is only when we go outside that comfort zone, and subject ourselves to the
discomfort of considering thoughts we don't agree with, that we can make an
informed judgment on any matter. We can still disagree and maintain our
opinions, but we can now do so knowing that the issue has been given
consideration from all four sides. Or, if we truly give fair consideration to
all points of view, we may need to swallow our pride and amend our original
thoughts."

------
MistahKoala
If the letter received was representative of the 'fringe' 5%, I'm interested
in how the other 90% read. It's quite anodyne, in my opinion.

~~~
codyb
I'm going to assume that if it was representative of the 5%, it was of the 1%
of that 5% who chose to position their thoughts in an eloquent and respectful
manner.

His reply is also an example of a positive, thoughtful, and respectful
response to another's position. The letter was fruitful in that gave him much
to espouse upon in his reply.

In this way, it may just have been the perfect example for his community
outreach. And I'd say it was an excellent choice.

------
dchichkov
_" In the year 2013, our officers made over four hundred thousand vehicle
stops, mostly for traffic violations. A citation was issued in only about one
in six of those stops. Five of the six received warnings. This is the police
exercising discretion for minor violations of the law. Few, if any, persons
would argue that the police should have no discretion."_

Huh. Really? Warnings five out of six times? Is that pretty common?

~~~
HillRat
Well, it's either an indication that the cops are engaging in aggressive
profiling, or are remarkably free of pressure to write tickets. Surprisingly,
the answer seems to be the latter -- Chief Anderson is an attorney who was
legal counsel to the department's SWAT unit as well as a longtime Nashville
cop, who appears to put great faith in building community-police
relationships, and whose department has independently adopted stringent anti-
profiling rules.

Anderson also blew the whistle to Congress a few months ago on an attempt by
Secret Service agents to mislead a suspect into believing they had a warrant.
If the ACLU designed a supercop, it'd be this guy. Nashville -- who knew?

------
lizzard
Perfectly pitched and perfectly constructed!

------
dang
This was killed by user flags, but we unkilled it. It's surprisingly
thoughtful and unusual enough to make it intellectually interesting and
therefore on topic for this site.

~~~
whiddershins
Thanks, I really thought so. I found his statements about the personal
echochamber effect to be particularly insightful.

Although police giving coffee and hot chocolate to protestors reads like a
light-hearted PR move, it raises interesting questions about why police and
protestors are by default at odds, when they often have overlapping concerns
and agendas.

~~~
MBCook
The only times I can think of police being involved in protests are because
they (at least appear) to be non-neutral.

When the police are the _target_ of the protest, it's pretty easy for them to
appear to be on one side of the issue. If the people of Ferguson think the
police don't protect them it shouldn't be surprising that the protestors don't
want to obey them.

The only other incident that comes to mind is the WTO protests in Seattle
years ago. I remember the people felt like the police were being used to
squash legitimate protests and suppress speech.

But I know other protests happen. The various fast food woke protests earlier
this year would be an example. Most of the time the police are out doing stuff
like stopping really rowdy people from escalating things and managing traffic.
I'd imagine most of these kind of protests (large marches, etc.) are scheduled
but even when they weren't the police weren't seen as intruding because they
were perceived to be neutral.

That neutrality makes a _big_ difference. With it the police are there to
help/protect the protestors and keep things safe. Without it the police can
start to feel like a military force putting down rebellion. And a crowd is
going to react very differently to those two things.

------
V7Theory
It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted
he wasn't, but to do so he has to completely ignore the fact that protesters
were not just being heard, but shutting down major highways and disrupting
people's efforts to enter the mall, this after many protesters doing similar
things elsewhere had been violent and criminal. Sure, if you ignore that then
yeah, the writer is a total dope.

~~~
MBCook
> It's pretty clear the chief intended on showing the writer how well-adjusted
> he wasn't

I'm guessing the second 'he' refers to the letter writer and not the chief.
It's a little unclear from the sentence.

This seemed like a very well written and thoughtful rebuttal to some of the
concerns in the letter. I didn't get a tone that it was showing the letter's
author they weren't 'well adjusted'.

> [..] this after many protesters doing similar things elsewhere had been
> violent and criminal.

If the protesters in Tennessee weren't being violent/criminal, why compare
them to the protests in some other cities? It was mentioned that the highways
were kept open after the first night.

Sounds like the whole thing went pretty peacefully. If letting the protestors
close an onramp or two the first day was the price for avoiding a riot or
revolt that may have been an excellent decision.

~~~
V7Theory
Your first assumption is correct, the chief was showing the letter writer that
the letter writer wasn't well adjusted, but it looks like you figured that
out. > why compare them to the protests in some other cities? You'd have to be
intellectually dishonest to compare one to the other and not worry that they
were the same. They were protesting the same thing and in a similar manner.
While it hadn't escalated to the point of other protests, all other
indications were there with no way of determining the stopping point of
escalation. > If letting the protestors close an onramp or two the first day
was the price for avoiding a riot or revolt that may have been an excellent
decision. Perhaps that may be true from the police officer's point of view but
it doesn't offer any validation to citizens safety concerns. When we look at
the incident from a standpoint of it being passed us, then it is only
convenient to say that the police officers made the correct decision in
allowing illegal acts, but it isn't necessarily true.

The Problem with the chief's reply is that it ignores the citizens VALID
safety concerns and then makes assumptions concerning the citizen's adjustment
to society. If there had been no safety concerns, then the chief might have
been justified in his assumption, but when the police force allows people to
do large scale illegal acts that directly affect the lives of the people
around them, then you can hardly say that concerns for safety aren't valid.

So whether the citizen's concerns for safety are valid or not is the point
that the article relies upon to justify the chief's response. I submit that
the citizen's concerns for safety were valid, whether or not I would have felt
the same (you have to "step out of your comfort zone" and try to avoid biases
to understand that), and therefore the chief's reply was assuming and biased.

