This isn't a personal thread in case anyone still cares about that rule. The title is a reference to the Foo Fighters song Hey, Johnny Park!

So anyway, I saw an mb post this on Facebook: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/police-union-quentin-tarantino-surprise_563bfddde4b0411d3070793c

That comes off as really lame to me that they would even say that sort of thing. Besides, I agree with the Tarantino quote. Cops have shot and killed innocent civilians despite the victims having been no real threats. How is that NOT murder?

Anyway, I know Jon'C enjoys American police work, so even though (as already established) this is no personal thread, I do wonder what he makes of that story. I mean, this is no personal thread so I'm not calling for him specifically to respond, but if he for whatever reason chooses to do so, I would of course be curious to read his input. As I would anyone else's, for sure.

Hell, I wonder what SF_Gold thinks, too. He's in Mexico where the cops are far less corrupt than in the US, so he has an interesting perspective as someone who moved from a country where the authorities are horrendously corrupt to one where they're basically untouchable by comparison.

"This guy thinks we're violent. Well, here's an ambiguous threat."
-the police

Why do people always think that their sanctimonious boycotts are going to actually accomplish anything? This sort of thing happens any time a person or company of any influence comes out in support of any kind of progressive agenda. Doritos makes rainbow colored chips or Kraft makes rainbow Oreos? We'll boycott those libtards! Yeah, sure. They'll be reversing their statements in a week, right?

It's particularly dumb when it's with regard to someone like Tarantino. Despite his unquestionable success as a director, the man still pretty much makes niche genre films. Let's be honest. There is virtually no one that was going to go see The Hateful Eight but suddenly isn't now because of what Tarantino said about police officers. Let's pretend for a second that 100% of cops are going to forgo seeing his movie. Okay, how many of them were going to see it before? Cops make up a pretty small percentage of the American population. Now, which people who aren't cops are going to be just so pissed off about this that they suddenly aren't going to go see it? You're looking at pretty much exclusively hyper conservative fringe, which is the demographic that doesn't go to the damned movies anyway unless it's some inane bull**** like "God's Not Dead" or whatever half-baked Jesus movie came out that quarter.

The kind of people who get their **** in a twist over somebody offering thoroughly valid criticism of the way American policework is carried out are the same people who piss and moan about liberal Hollywood Jews, gay agendas, Marxist communist socialist black lives don't matter, etc... No one is hurting Tarantino's box office take in a way that is going to mean absolutely anything to Tarantino. Sure, Harvey Weinstein might complain in the press about how it's going to hurt the movie, but there's every possibility that the cynical ******* is only doing that to drum up publicity for it. This isn't his first time around the controversy carousel.

Now, the fact remains that a lot of people are upset because he's refusing to backpedal on his statements purporting that some police officers are murderers when a police officer was killed in Harlem recently. This is something that really confuses me, because it's really a case of holding two things to be equal that are very much not equal. Everyone wonders why people flip out when a police officer kills an unarmed civilian, but that the same people don't react the same way when a police officer is killed. Okay, I really don't think there are too many people out there who are, like, throwing a party when cops get killed. Everyone with even a bit of sense in their mind thinks it's a bad thing when people get killed, but a police officer going down in the line of duty is a much different thing than a civilian being killed as a result of excessive force. Being a police officer is dangerous. Everyone knows that. Would it be nice if it wasn't as dangerous? Yes, of course it would, but we all have enough sense to understand that this is something that unfortunately comes with the territory. It sucks, but it is what it is. Becoming a police officer is a major risk because it means you're probably going to spend a lot of your time around violent sociopaths, and a lot of them won't even be your coworkers.

But here's the thing: Being a civilian isn't supposed to come with a risk of being killed by the cops. Do you increase your risk of death or bodily harm by being a violent criminal? Of course you do, but we're not talking about violent criminals being killed by the cops, are we? We're talking about a guy who was selling loose cigarettes, or a guy who was trying to buy a bb gun at Walmart, or two guys who simply just ran away. Running from the cops - punishable by summary execution. How hard is it to explain to people that the reason everyone gets upset when a police officer kills an unarmed citizen is because that person's constitutional rights flew out the window as easy as 1, 2, 3. Police officers exist to uphold the law, and if you're in violation of the law you subject yourself to detention, not to violent beatings and execution. The cops are there to guard your constitutional rights against others who would seek to violate them, and no one understands why people are upset when it's a police officer who is doing the violating.

****ing hell, people.

You know, that was my first thought. Not to mention that internationally he's gonna double in profits whatever he might lose in America.

Oh, and I really like the name The Hateful Eight.

In fact, when you see the film, think of me. https://translate.google.com/#ja/en/%E6%86%8E%E3%82%80%E3%81%B9%E3%81%8D

Coincindentally, 8 is more or less my favorite number

Even disregarding specific events,

The police have the only remaining effective union, so they are effectively unpunishable without a successful criminal prosecution.
State prosecutors and judges are openly unwilling to prosecute police for minor misconduct. It takes a massive public outcry before anything will happen.
Commercial media has strong incentives toward cryptofascism and a few even less polite things I can say about them, so viral outcries against the police are rare.
And if one does happen, because of the police officer's occupation there is always a reasonable doubt that he was just doing his job, so juries are ipso facto instructed to acquit.
As a result, 'problem cops' are usually 'promoted' above having to interact with the public, into positions of genuine authority over other officers.
Meanwhile, powerful industry groups like the police unions, arms manufacturers, and private prison contractors, all lobby the different branches of government for terrible laws: intrusive and vaguely-written national security, drug, and anti-laundering laws; authorizing carte blanche use of less-lethal weapons; and the meteoric rise of the mandatory minimum sentence, robbing the judiciary of one of the most important constitutionally-guaranteed powers in most countries.
On top of it, the neoliberal compulsion for lower taxes and balanced budgets effectively ties police compensation to macroeconomic performance. And even when the economy is performing well, 'drown it in the bathtub' conservatives have additionally slashed police budgets relative to increasing responsibilities. The result is a police force that is the weakest when the crime rate is the worst, and police departments that must conduct themselves extremely poorly in the pursuit of funding.

This is an international pattern, too, so don't pretend I'm only saying it about the US.

The basic problem with all of this is the public, by the way.

The public demands that 100% of crime be punished, and 0% innocent people. This isn't possible, but the average person doesn't have the cognitive skill to understand why. The only way you can satisfy the demands of the public is to give government unlimited power, spend unlimited money, and call the punished innocents criminals. And this is exactly what they've done.

Has anyone in the media made a substance-less connection between Tarantino's current views and his "views" on police in Reservoir Dogs?

I agree that this won't really hurt box office sales. If anything, it might even improve, who knows. He spoke his mind in other occasions, and there's been controversy (usually artificial if that makes sense) with him before so I don't see how this changes anything. In like a year's time, people will forget about this issue. I already did until this thread reminded me.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Basing what Tarantino thinks of the police on Reservoir Dogs. That Fox News article could write - and probably has written - itself.

Speaking of which, you can kill cops in Deus Ex: Nihilum. I wonder if I've been clandestinely banned from entry to the United States due to that?

I haven't been. Doubt you have.