Today I stopped Caring….
Posted by Zenphamy 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
Well at least one cop understands how we feel about his profession, but he blames us, not those of his other 900,000+ compatriots who've given us just cause to despise the profession and those that would abuse their positions in it.
By Lt Daniel Furseth, DeForest, Wisconsin Police Department
"Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man. I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve. I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted."
By Lt Daniel Furseth, DeForest, Wisconsin Police Department
"Today, I stopped caring about my fellow man. I stopped caring about my community, my neighbors, and those I serve. I stopped caring today because a once noble profession has become despised, hated, distrusted, and mostly unwanted."
SOURCE URL: http://nycfirewire.com/today-i-stopped-caring/
What is this attributing to the entire police forces the actions of a small minority? Is this endemic to the people of the Gulch? This boils down to a collectivist mentality, or to use a simpler term, prejudice. Maybe because of my age and shrinking brain I've missed something. Would someone care to elucidate me?
We're having to deal with these people who're taught from the first day that they're better than the rest of us and that they're at war with us, and their jobs are to control us with intimidation, weapons of war, and tactics more suited for a war zone than for the neighborhoods we live in. They're given essentially carte blanche to stop any of us at any time for any reason, and then to pursue a 'criminal' investigation of us. They're taught that they're members of an elite brotherhood who will always have their back, right or wrong. Their basic training even includes 'don't hesitate' targets which originated in the military to reduce the numbers of men that didn't fire their rifles on the front line.
It's not about the 'good' cop being painted with the same brush as the bad cop--it's about the role of a cop in our neighborhood.
Why shouldn't the police/SWAT have proper tactics to take quick control of a possible hostile area? And yes, sometimes it may be in our neighborhoods... As far as them being a brotherhood and that they have each others back, well, they should. Look at unions, the military, corporations, and many other businesses. Without a team, it just don't work!!!
It sounds to me that you just paint all police with the same brush...
Hostile areas sounds like WARZONE to me. If we live in a war zone, let me know so I can uparmor and prepare. I'm not unfamiliar with such places and the necessary conduct, but if you try to Mi Lai on me, don't expect it to go as easy as it did in Nam, or Ruby Ridge, or Waco. You want to call yourself an 'operator', join up and go through the same qualifications, testing, training, and years that some of the rest of us did. And we didn't even call ourselves operators, (I suspect we'd have done a skivey check on anyone stupid enough to call himself that) and if we'd killed as many as these simpletons do, rather than successfully kidnap them out of their beds and bring them back for questioning and POWing, we wouldn't have had our jobs, even lives, for long.
And yes, I paint our police with as broad a brush as they seem willing to paint us with and their's appears to be dipped in blood. WE'RE NOT AT WAR. I care not who you are or what authority you claim to have, do not point a gun at me or try to break in my door. I will not accept that from anyone or any group. Treat me with the respect you seem to think I should treat police and we'll all get along. I'm an old man, but the cost you'll have to pay to make a 'MISTAKE' with me is much more than you seem to expect and I guarantee, more than you're willing to pay. I've already got the coffee cup, belt buckle, and ball cap, and yes, I'm still paying for those' heroic' experiences.
Maybe you live in an area such as Germantown near Memphis or the Dominion north of San Antonio but there are many war zones throughout the US. I don't live in a war zone but there are many that do. You make it sound like there should not be a police force and just let everyone do what they want to each other!!!
You make it sound as if you are ready for war but you also stated that we are not at war??????
I simply have no interest whatsoever in determining or limiting what you or anyone else does with their lives and actions up to the point of attempting to use or apply force to me or stealing from me.
You brought up the need for police to control 'hostile areas' and that justifies the war type actions that police partake in and apply to their interactions with citizens. And yes, if someone else make's it necessary for me to protect myself and my property, I am prepared. As anyone should be.
Sounds like your local Walmart is a possible war zone.
But most of the laws against that stuff came from societal agreement to set up some limits so that folks who want to do those things can, in some cases, be made to take responsibility for their actions, and especially if those actions actually hurt other people. And speeding and running red lights can greatly increase the odds of hurting (or killing) an innocent victim.
Anarchy is, again, a straw dog thrown into discussions to deflect the discussion away from the concept of personal responsibility and rationale.
One of my favorite examples used to be the Autobahn in Germany, back when it had NO speed limits AT ALL posted anywhere. Total anarchy.
I kept getting passed by faster cars because my rental had a huge front end vibration above about 60 mph. I learned to pass quickly before the headlights in my rearview mirror quickly got 'wider' and flashed furiously.
Then I asked a German friend about the speed limits and accidents on the 'Bahn... He said that there were few problems. If someone went off the road with an accident, they didn't bother to send police or ambulance, just a wrecker to remove the shredded wreck from the field nearby. Survival chances at those speeds were negligible and accidents were often single-car wrecks. So, at one level... no problemo.
When I have to wait, alone, for a minute or more for a red light to change, I occasionally will, With Extreme Caution, go through the intersection. My stepson-lawyer told me that I could claim to have assumed that the signal has sustained some kind of electrical or mechanical failure if no cars had come through the intersection on the crossing road during that period. I've probably done that dozens of times.
But VERY carefully. And never been caught, ticketed or involved in an accident.
But if 'everyone' did that 'all the time' for 'any reason,' it Would be anarchy and Very Dangerous, and you should bet that folks like me would rarely, if ever, run those lights or signs.
Or, as I've learned over the decades, the 'right answer' is often "It Depends."
:)
You are missing the point that without the law there would be anarchy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One of my co-workers, dozens of years ago, was killed by a repeat-offender drunk driver as she was returning to work from her lunch hour.
Beautiful, successful young girl. Just graduating with a degree, had a great boyfriend, and some bitch t-boned her. I'd complimented her on her looks while walking in to work that day. By early afternoon she was dead.
And the LAWS (i.e., LACK of 'anarchy') were also 'on the books already' about drunk driving. The t-boner-bitch was estimated at roughly 60 in a 35 zone.
It's not the laws or lack thereof; it's people's behavior! Laws may lead to punishment, and SOMETIMES they discourage people from doing stupid things, but they are NOT primary means of 'danger prevention.'
The laws will only do so much. People sometimes choose to not follow them. Could you imagine the anarchy if there were no laws? At least the laws rein in most people.
Sort of like the belief that the threat of Capital Punishment 'keeps people from killing people.'
If anything, those laws 'prevent' people who wouldn't commit that kind of crime in the first place and have no effect on the ones who would anyway... whether the crime is murder or running red lights and stop signs.
That's what I meant in my 'confession' that I DO 'run red lights' but ONLY when it's safe, imnsho, to do so, AND the light appears to be malfunctioning.
Laws are created as reminders in society for 'things to Don't Do.' If you say they 'rein in' people from doing bad stuff, you'd have to then quantify what percentage of participants ARE 'reined in' and what percentage are NOT, as well as WHY...
Whole 'nother discussion... :)
There is a very different mentality in the force that I didn't see back when I was a kid.
(and your first answer is probably wrong, too... )
:)
So you and the others blame the POLICE for acting the way they're REWARDED for acting, without asking Who is DOING that rewarding and WHY they're doing it and How?
I thought this was a group of objective, rational people here!
As I've said too many times before, here and elsewhere.... the root cause of the 'issue at hand' is virtually NEVER the first 'reason' anyone comes up with!
Critical Thinking is Dead in the US. I think it died somewhere back in the '80s.
Now, back to the regularly-scheduled generalizations...
Happy Holidays, all!
I fully understand 'Who is DOING the rewarding and the WHY and HOW'. The root cause is quite simply the collectivist and statist mongering and pandering that we've all accepted in our society for far too long.
If you have a better answer than that, please discuss.
Why have the mongering and pandering been accepted [or even tolerated] 'far too long'?
.... Your first answer is probably not the real cause...
I am an advocate of Critical Thinking, and some folks have labeled my approach as Socratic. Whatever...
When people pose issues that 'need fixing,' I approach the stated problems NOT with 'my answer' (unless they demand it, but only under duress...) but with the Question Cycle of "well, why DOES THAT HAPPEN?"
The 'problem' as I see it, is that 'everyone' wants The Answer to come from that initial posing of the question. I believe that, in most cases, that's impossible.
The First Answer to "Why?" is nearly always simple, easy and wrong.
Why Things Go Wrong requires, in my NEVER so humble opinion, the Repeated Asking of "Why does THAT occur" until you get close to what might actually be a Root Cause of The Problem.
Why do people steal?
Because they are poor and need stuff.
Why are they poor?
Because the system screws them over.
Why does 'the system screw them over'?
Because it's designed to do that.
Why is it designed to do that?
Because it's run by money-grubbing rich folks.
Why do MGRF's run it?
Because they have money and power.
Why do they have money and power?
Because they inherited it or have political pull.
Why do they have political pull?
Because our political system is built that way.
Why is it built that way?
In my experience, unless one or both sides of that Why-Because 'dialogue' deliberately try to avoid finding Root Cause, a rational give and take on that WILL get close to Root Cause in no LESS than about six iterations. And those are the Easy Issues.
Some month or so ago, I engaged my step-grandson in such a discussion on a subject he'd inquired about. We went, according to his count, something like ELEVEN layers down and still hadn't found Root Cause, and it wasn't because we weren't both trying to find it.
The issue was, in Reality, just That Complex as to require that kind of in-depth search!
I'll now go back up the thread a bit and demonstrate how my questions could be applied to some of the 'answers' AND questions above.
Thanks for participating and inspiring.
I guess that leaves us with the typical bully attracted to, recruited for, or even allowed in law enforcement today.
When you hear police say they feel their main concern is to make sure they come home to their family, it's a sign of the diversity disease. If you feel the police in your community have become the enemy, and you make no effort to bridge that gap, then you're infected too.
Always providing an interesting angle/analysis and food for thought.
I am torn on this issue. I see some bad police, but also some good.
There is no darkness without the light.
Regards,
O.A.
That leaves you with two honorable choices: work to reform the profession (including refusing to stand behind bad cops and fighting them instead), or quit it and get an honorable job.
But you don't have the guts to do either. So be it. You are declaring war on us the people, and we will act accordingly.
I drove a 1987 Black Pontiac Trans Am GTA with tinted windows and a very throaty Flowmaster exhaust. It was a cheap sports car that looked mean, but in reality it was a used, 10 year piece of junk that had been rode hard and put up wet when I got it. I mention that because it is integral to this story.
I had taken Donna to dinner at Dave & Buster's over in Dallas to eat, play games and shoot the bull with some friends. Neither of us had a single drop of alcohol to drink at any point. It was about 2 a.m. and I was whooped, so I asked her to drive us home. She liked that idea because she was always down to drive that car. Since I drove her and was paying on our date, she did not bring her purse which included her driver's license, but there was no reason for concern because we were both stone sober AND she knew her DL # off the top of her head. For what it's worth, I do too.
We get to Cheek Sparger Rd. and Hwy. 121. To get to the part of Bedford where she lived, you had to drive about 3 and a half miles on Cheek Sparger at a maddeningly slow 20 MPH. That road also serves as the boundary line between Bedford and Colleyville (a very wealthy suburb). The cops from both department routinely infest that road with radar guns hidden just off the side streets all up and down that thing constantly looking for people speeding. They did then and they still do.
We knew this, so we crept along at 20 MPH or below the entire freaking way. The speedometer NEVER hit 21 MPH for so much as a nanosecond. We used turn signals, came to complete stops, and all of the other straight out of the driving textbook stupidity that we all ignore every day. We did it all, 100% in accordance with the letter of the law. What's my point, you ask? We never gave the cops any kind of probable cause for ANYTHING. There was no reason at all to hassle us that night.
By now, I am sure you can figure out that is exactly what they did. Johnny Law pulls up behind us and rides the bumper for a full mile and a half. At 20 MPH, that's 4 and a half minutes, plus the stop sign at Central Dr. So, 5 minutes into this nonsense, I told Donna to turn onto on of the residential streets that fed into and off of Cheek Sparger to let him by, so he'd quit screwing with is. What does he do, you ask? He crawls further up our butts and lights us up to pull over. This is where the fun starts.
He comes to the window, hand on his gun, flashlight directly in our faces and starts demanding paperwork. Donna gives him her DL number in lieu of the card and the insurance card that I pulled from the glove box. Outside of her not having the actual card to give him, everything is current. Her DL was too, she just didn't have the hard copy card with her.
I asked from the passenger seat why he pulled us over knowing full well that we hadn't broken any traffic laws at all.
He ignores me, of course, and demands to know, " What are you doing in my fair city, this time of night, Boy?" in his best redneckified southern sheriff, Buford T. Pusser wannabe voice. That, by the way, is the actual quote that I remember as if it had happened yesterday. Put simply, this jackbooted jagov was trying to intimidate me.
With that question fresh in my mind, I am getting pissed now. I demanded again to know why he had pulled us over. I told him that we knew he was there the entire time, so we broke no laws.
This time around, he tells me that he ran the license plate and had seen that this car was registered to someone who lived in Dallas, and again, he asks, "I said, what are you doing in my fair city, this time of night, Boy?"
I responded with another question. I wanted to know what business it was of his to know my comings and goings AND why in the hell had he pulled us over for a third time.
This time, let's call him Roscoe, goes into great detail about how the light that illuminates my license plate was out, thereby creating a situation where he was not clearly able to read the plate without pulling us over. It was a highly illegal situation, you see, and he needed desperately to get to the bottom of it. I know you Gulch readers are all smarter than the average bear and have just figured out the same thing I did in that instant. If he read my plates in order to run them thereby determining that the car was registered in Dallas, how did he manage to do that if the plate was dark. After all, there are no street lights on Cheek Sparger and it was 2 in the morning. I offered to let him show me the faulty light on my car which, by the way, had literally passed inspection that week.
I had just caught him in a lie, and he knew it. I am am freaking livid (continued)
Does he want to show me the faulty light? Hell no. Do NOT get out of your car, sir, or he will arrest me for (fill in the blank - resisting, obstruction, disorderly conduct, whatever). Now, I am spoiling for a fight. I know I am right, and he does too.
He hits me with a bunch of horse manure about a hundred things I might be doing. I might be on my way to a street race. I might be dealing drugs. I might be drunk. I might be a Cornish Game Hen dressed up in a human suit. Who knows what I am up to? Therefore, it is up to Roscoe to screw with us and watch the goings on in his fair city. He hits us with all the usual garbage about rapists and murderers and child molesters and Cornish Game Hens that cops always use to justify their actions whenever they break the law, because there is just no possible way that I could understand what he is doing or how hard his job is. Basically, it was the kind of usual talking point baloney they use to get the average starry eyed citizen that "backs the blue" to not look too closely at what they are doing.
As you have probably imagined by now, I was completely underwhelmed with this nonsense, and I having none of it. I demanded that he either write the ticket for her absent DL card AND show up in court so that I could undress this scumbag in front of a jury of our peers or to piss off and go chase after some chicken thieves of whatever. I only wish that we had smart phones back then, because I would have made this moron famous on YouTube.
He did mention in his comments once he'd had his lies thrown back in his face that my car, ten year old '87 Trans Am, was just the kind of thing that he would expect some weed dealing teenager to be driving. He was not expecting a recently college graduated guy in his mid 20s who knew his his rights and was willing to fight for them.
Some would argue that I should have simply cooperated with this guy and politely answered all his questions and thanked him for wasting my time. I, for one, think that is exactly the wrong approach to take when someone takes my Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights and wipes his ass with them.
So what did I take from this?
1. If the police are going to just assume that people are criminals by profiling them in one way or another, is it any wonder that people that are being profiled do not trust them either? I'm just an every day, ordinary white guy who was minding my own business, but I got jacked up because he profiled my car, not because of any law that I (or Donna) had broken.
2. If I can be profiled for my car, then is it really so hard to believe the stories about black folks being pulled over for driving while black? By the way, go to YouTube and watch the video titles "corruption in Kaufman County" if you want a decent idea of Roscoe's conduct during my stop. He never got physical with me, but he acted the same way.
3. After watching that video, ask yourself how many minorities get jacked up the same way. How many have been beaten down and arrested for resisting arrest, failure to comply, disorderly conduct, etc.? I am not suggesting that the cops never have to deal with this kind of thing, but how much of the bullshlt they deal with is of their own making? How much is a self fulfilling prophecy? They look for crime, and by God, they will find it whether it exists or not. They will make a criminal out of you one way of the other.
4. With the NYPD's stop and frisk policy (a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment), how many people have been beaten for resisting that tyranny? How many arrested? How many people were made to be criminals because of how a police report was written that weren't criminals when they were approached by the police.
On conclusion, color me unsympathetic to Lt. Furseth's case. When he starts arresting the criminals in his own department, I may have some respect for him, but unless/until he cleans up his own backyard, his whining rant will fall on my deaf ears.
When was the last time you ever saw one cop step in to arrest another cop for anything? When Officer Palateo choked Eric Garner to death, did ANY of the other cops there do anything to stop him? Did ANY of the cops there do anything to help him breathe when he complained about not being able to for several minutes? How many of those cops made excuses after the fact about Mr. Garner's weight being what killed him instead of the obvious chokehold applied when Officer Palateo initiated the violence against him. the average cop will stand there and defend Palateo no matter what.
How about Tamir Rice? Have you heard ANY cop say that gunning that idiot kid down in the way that they did was wrong? I get the stress of a "man with gun" scenario, but if there was no one else in the park that day, there was no imminent threat to anyone. Why, then, does it make sense for a cop to drive up within a couple feet of a suspect with a gun? That seems like a guaranteed way to make sure someone is going to die. It could be the cops themselves, for Pete's sake. If there is no one nearby, then why not pull up 50 yards away, take cover behind the squad car and address the situation with an aimed AR-15 AND a bullhorn? It would be a helluva lot safer for the cops, for sure. It would also give them an opportunity to address the issue of an idiotic kid with a pellet gun without blowing him away 2 seconds after arriving on scene. Also, regarding that situation, why was there only one shot fired by the rookie cop who killed that kid? Wouldn't you keep shooting until the threat was completely eliminated? One shot only sounds like he recognized his mistake only after fatally shooting that kid. Why didn't the other officer shoot if the situation was life threatening? Even better, why did neither officer lift a finger to render any kind of first aid while Tamir Rice laid there dying? It likely wouldn't jave helped, but they didn't even try to help that kid. By driving up within 10 feet, getting out screaming with guns drawn, the cops guaranteed that someone was going to die that day, and it could just as easily have been them. More to the point, why is it that NOT A SINGLE COP has questioned how they handled that situation? Every single one of them that I have heard has defended their handling of that call and the use of deadly force. I am not the kind of idiot that expects a cop to discern the difference between a pellet gun and a real gun or anything stupid about shooting it out of his hands. I am the kind of guy that wonders why you wouldn't address the situation from a safer distance than 10 feet away using a better weapon than a handgun from behind cover.
When Lt. Furseth is willing to address this kind of thing in his own department, I might start to give a flying crap about his opinion, but unless/until he does, he can save his screed for someone that doesn't know better.
Five years ago her floor won a nationwide award for being in the top 2% of its kind in the country. Their reward: an increase in patient load from 4 to 5. Now occasionally she has to take care of 6 patients. Then yesterday came the straw that may have broken the camel's back. To minimize the likelihood of bed sores, two nurses on her floor at a time spend one hour per 14-hour shift turning patients. Why the hell is this not being done by techs? Over 50% of the techs have shrugged. This could easily be done by a couple of homeless guys just down the street from her hospital, but no, the hospital can't charge for that, and the homeless wouldn't do it anyway because they get their three squares via government welfare and their medical care paid via Medicaid. 15% of her patients are unappreciative Medicaid patients who act like they are entitled to cruise ship service.
The bottom is where too many projects fail though. Management often (not always thankfully) has a tendency to think they can issue orders and demands and get exactly what they envision. But in reality since so many of them have rarely if ever done the work they are trying to manage, the instructions leave a lot to be desired.
If the workforce buys in, they will get it done anyway, and help correct the procedures. But if they don't buy in they do what they are told and things wind up worse than before the project started.
Six Sigma is very much a team effort, and buy in is required at all levels.
Unfortunately too many people cause the projects to either have problems, or flat out fail when they get defensive, or try to control things about which they are clueless. And you are right, its usually the middle that goes wonky on you.
wanted" sounds like a "fact" to me, although
a pretty sad one. Who would you call or look
for should you be in danger? Your Mother?
Your neighbor?
of my childhood says it all.
When they can't recruit enough police will they be able to draft them into service? What happens when we do the same thing to our military, make them out to be the bad guys?
of my childhood; today's Churches aren't the
Churches of my childhood; today's movies
aren't the movies of my children; ad nauseam! For that matter, today's world isn't etc.etc.etc.
It sure sounded like they were talking about vets like me at any rate.
brass to political yes-men and yes-women. . this is
sickening. -- j
I must say though, that if your statement on, "...even the honest, well meaning policemen are guilty, and probably more so, for joining the police force...", this is so far reaching so general that it encompasses everyone and every field and condemns all. There are terrible teachers poisoning the minds of our children with dangerous liberal, leftist extremisms- are all teachers to be condemned? There are judges entrusted to impart justice without malice and vengeance and yet many are more guilty than those who stand before them- are all judges to be condemned? The same for doctors, lawyers, politicians...
We are all guilty of imperfection, of oversight, of overreaction, of lack of courage, of empathy....
As I stated, I respect many of your points, but for the sake of application, to avoid hypocrisy, to be congruent- your statements, your beliefs cannot remain relegated and applicable only to the police. One can be so angry, so blinded by emotions, as to suffocate the light and destroy the seed of truth.
"One can strike a match and give light to the room or burn down the building".
Taking principled stands are the only way that we can maintain our freedoms and rights against those in our societies that wish to deny such. IMHO
It is a responsibility that, as you say, would preserve the freedoms and rights of our society.
Thank you for your passionate responses.
JC
Good discussion.
Seems that the core issue is one of individual character; principles, values, motive & intent.
These are severely tested when individuals find themselves in corrupt environments and especially where personal health & safety are challenged.
The underlying principle of 'Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.' seems appropriate. This can be demonstrated by what I refer to as the 'Crossing Guard Mentality'; Notice how when a child is given arbitrary authority or 'power' to 'control' others that privilege of 'office, rank or title', generally speaking of course, tends to be over emphasized if not abused for the amusement of the individual who holds that position based on the immaturity of that person. True as this principle may be, it does not apply equally to all.
The individuals character is essential in the employment of their authority. The character of the individual is revealed in the manner in which he speaks and acts in his relationship(s) with others. An individual who has experienced the influence of 'flawed' or 'healthy' character in parents, peers, teachers, mentors and other 'heroes' is likely to develop a similar character in himself. If he at some point is able to develop a significant degree of 'objectivity' in regards to his own character, there is the possibility to make a more conscious decision on the content of his character; principles, values, motive & intent.
If you are a sovereign individual aka John Galt, you not only understand, but have assumed full 'authority' and responsibility for your person. Most of us have some need or desire to interact with others, so the idea of being totally independent and self-reliant is impractical. Even John Galt needs and wants other (like-minded) individuals to join him in his 'shrug' to Galt's Gulch. But the principle of responsibility for ones character and actions are the key issue.
Prejudice, over-generalization, stereotyping, bias & bigotry are products of intellectual laziness or where expediency does not allow thorough investigation prior to response. It seems that a reasonable level of prejudgment based on prior observation and/or experience is appropriate where expediency is necessary.
The mistake in judgment and reasoning occurs when one becomes lazy or unwilling to judge a situation on its own merits, a new investigation rather than simply applying ones prejudgment.
In my humble opinion, it is always appropriate to question ones legitimacy of authority based on their character. Character means more than any title, certificate or demeanor. A legitimate authority is one based on sound character with unselfish motives and without intent to harm in any manner.
When legitimate rules & regulations (laws) which have been adopted are applied and enforced with other than the intent with which they were established, they are being abused in some manner which is not for the general health & safety of the individual or the community, but most likely for the profit & amusement of the individual who by doing so is a fraudulent and treacherous person who must be appropriately dealt with by his associates if we are to preserve a civil society.
I welcome your comments.
Best regards,
John Galt
Thank you.
JC
My intent was that I would like to see honorable, ethical, and virtuous men become policemen and go into their forces and return the entire force to what we expect of them, with pride. A system that protects it's own over the rights of the citizens that have granted them the limited power to apply force in the protection of the citizenry as a whole and retributive force against those that have violated the rights of those citizens, yet teaches them that they are at war with those citizens, demands that they enforce the outright thievery (civil forfeiture, traffic citation quotas, etc), and rewards their 'mistakes' that we see as abuse and wrongful death with immunity from prosecution is corrupt.
The honorable, ethical, and virtuous man that finds himself within such a system, supporting and defending those that do wrong as well as laws that he knows to be wrong--that then does nothing to correct the system while waiting out his retirement and pension time--that's Hitler's SS troops and police. Individually with his family and maybe neighbors he might appear to be such an honorable, ethical, and virtuous man probably even loved and respected--but he's not worthy. He is as corrupt as the system he works within, supports, and defends, or he's a puppet fool. Just following orders and doing my job are no longer justifications or excuses.
If even that doesn't work, then we'll have to think about sending them all home and learning to defend our own families.
It might well be that the police that have a difficult, gut wrenching job have that as the result of their working to reduce and eliminate the individual rights of those they are meant to serve. The police under Hitler probably had much the same complaints.
I started a neighborhood watch for my hood. One of few rules - no guns, ever. I started it long before the Trevon incident too, about 7 years ago. Just observe and report. It cut the crime way down.
people are good and take their difficult role as target,
gun-toter and freedom-limiter (by law) quite well.
please cut them some slack. -- john
p.s. did you see the fox report yesterday about the
police who worked these little miracles by stopping
someone, learning in conversation about a Christmas
wish which they could not afford, and then within 10
minutes' time, granting them that wish through the
collusion of a shadow team listening in, at the toy
store or department store?
to shoot my friendly neighbor is curtailed....... -- j
the road when I'd really love to go 90. . I have done
115 for hours on a harley, and, well, no ticket. . but
no traffic, either. . got a ticket for 50 in a 45. . paid
the dues, gladly, because it's like Mom enforcing
my saying "Yes, ma'am" to a neighbor -- social
courtesy. . society imposes courtesy rules, and
I do not fault the enforcers for the nature of their jobs. -- j
Compared to the general public that break the law the percentage is TINY.
That's why it's news - because it's UNUSUAL.
You never hear about the shootings of minorities in urban settings. It's not news - it's statistics.
From that minority, like any bigots, we generalize to ALL police.
Yes, you heard me - bigots.
That's what bigotry boils down to: Generalizing from the individual to the entire group, or group to the individual, unjustly attributing qualities that they may not have, whether good or bad.
It's bigotry, and police have become one of those professions, like teaching, where good-hearted people are have decided it's not worth the effort and more and more of them are leaving, avoiding the judgement of the public for things they never did and would never support.
No crime committed by a police officer gives us cause to "despise a profession". That's something we choose to do by extending their acts unjustly onto all the other other officers.
The officer in this article has finally given in and joined the bigotry.
And those of us who stop and say, "Thank you," when we see an officer are forgotten, as are those officers who haven't given up and who see the haters of police, the officers who give up, for the minority they are.
And it's up to us to point them out as a minority, or the bigotry will grow.
Choose.
While only a small percentage of cops use unnecessary violence or steal or whatever, the overwhelming majority of police will look the other way. When was the last time you heard or saw one cop outing another cop for the unnecessarily brutalizing someone? When was the last time one cop took the stand to say that, no, Mr. So and So didn't really resist arrest. He merely asked question or two.
When the rank and file will support pretty much anything and everything including the unnecessary use of force resulting in a needless death, then color me a bigot.
I see the police as little more than a legally sanctioned, heavily armed street gangs wearing government issued costumes who would rather lie to protect another officer than to tell the truth to help a citizen. If there is ever an us or them situation, the rank and file cop will always choose the us, regardless of the truth.
If that makes me a bigot, then I will wear that label with pride.
When was the last time such an event made the news, hon?
They don't publicize such things but the internal affairs department doesn't sit on their hands.
You can see them any way you like, but unless you've seen the records of internal affairs and the efforts they make - you're reacting off of the news as if it is reality and ignoring the evidence that contradicts it.
Feel free. Any of us who have had an association with police know better.
There's nothing proud about bigotry.
With all due respect, you can save your generalities and platitudes for someone that has their eyes closed. As for me, I am paying attention, and I see precious little from the police unless/until audio and/or video recordings prove their guilt beyond any possible doubt. Even then, the punishments cops often face amount to little more than a paid vacation.
Also, when it comes to bigotry, these cops that you would so blindly defend aren't exactly paragons of judging people by the content of their character, Hon.
Please point out where I blindly defend anyone.
Otherwise, please keep your straw man arguments to yourself if you don't want them pointed out.
That reveals more than anything else - when you defame or exaggerate someone's arguments and then deny your own exaggeration.
Feel free - your credibility is at stake, not mine.
My challenge stands, IamTheBeav.
Show where I blindly defend anyone.
Or if you have ethics, retract.
OK, fair enough. Earlier, you wrote, "They don't publicize such things but the internal affairs department doesn't sit on their hands.
You can see them any way you like, but unless you've seen the records of internal affairs and the efforts they make - you're reacting off of the news as if it is reality and ignoring the evidence that contradicts it."
So, that begs the question. What Internal Affairs investigations are you personally familiar with? You claimed earlier that people, presumably like yourself, that have an association with the police know better. Well, Hon, start naming names, citing specific examples that can be independently verified. If you can't or won't then I'd say your credibility is what is in doubt.
Why should I take your word for anything based on faith? You claimed some association with the police, so put up or shut up. Prove me wrong, Hon. Give me some compelling reason to think that the average Joe Policeman actually cares more about the ordinary citizen than he does for another cop or his job. Unless/until you can, I won't be retracting anything.
As for showing your blind defense of the police, I would assert that your default position is to simply assume they are guiltless in general, or at a bare minimum, active in weeding out the rotten in their ranks. You claimed to have some knowledge, so show it. In the absence of specific evidence, I'd say my assertion regarding your blind defense is right on the money.
You have no ethics, sir.
I don't spend my time debating with such people.
I owe you nothing and by your own standards you have no credibility yourself.
I'll leave you to the last word - it's become worthless to me.
I have this odd propensity for believing in "Innocent until proved Guilty".
Sad to see that so many of you have abandoned it.
The police haven't and the evidence backs that up.
I'd say you're a criminal that got caught too many times and has a grudge accordingly.
Of course you could prove me wrong by revealing a bunch of personal information so I could check otherwise I'll stay with my assumption.
Seems reasonable to you.
I'm done with this site - none of this represents Ayn Rand or Objectivism.
It's alarmist garbage for the most part.
It's cheap to hate the government (or an group blindly).
Takes no ethics at all.
Put another way, I asked you to put up or shut up, and you chose the latter. Cool. I win. You lose. Buh bye.
As for my identity, I'll play your game. My name is Chris Beavers. I am 42 years old, live in Fort Worth, TX on a street that starts with an L and ends with an A. If you really do have some real association with the police (which I seriously doubt), you shouldn't have too much trouble verifying my criminal record or complete lack thereof. How's that for putting up, Hon?
Compared to the general population they perform far fewer crimes statistically. That's all I'm saying.
They're not officers--they're cops. Their job is to capture and bring before the court someone that violates my natural individual rights, with a proper 4th Amendment warrant in hand when they arrest him.
Either you are bigoted toward every honest, legal, ethical police officer on the basis of the behavior of a few dishonest, unethical corrupt officers;
OR
You misunderstood what I said.
Your words, not mine, will reveal which.
You ARE following your ethics - you consider the entire police force corrupt.
I disagree, but am glad you stand by what you believe - we need more people who do, regardless.
Thanks for clarifying.
Keep speaking up, Zenphamy.
Regardless, it is an honorable profession filled with imperfect (I can say imperfect because I believe we have been given a perfect example in Christ to compare to) men to do a job most do not.
"I'm Leaving it as I found it ..."
Load more comments...