Cops are people too


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks for sharing that.  I think I'd heard of that study some years ago but had forgotten about it.  

 

I was once debating a subject like this and someone said "Cops are like everybody else, they will make mistakes just as much as everybody else, so this is a non-issue."

 

To which I responded that that isn't good enough.  Police officers have a variety of authority and powers that I, as an ordinary citizen, do not.  They can carry guns anywhere they want, they can make arrests, they can carry police issue pepper spray, they can block traffic, etc.  That means they have to be the best of us.  They have to be the most trustworthy, most honorable, most level headed.  I agree that the uniform may have the impact you described in the prison guard experiment, so we need people who can resist that (if it can be resisted.)  

 

The trouble is too many people are unwilling to look at it objectively.  The hero-worship causes a confirmation bias that leads people to minimize and even ignore the obvious problems.  That, in turn causes people to galvanize, roughly along political lines, and it becomes just another deadlocked issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

Police officers have a variety of authority and powers that I, as an ordinary citizen, do not.  They can carry guns anywhere they want, they can make arrests, they can carry police issue pepper spray, they can block traffic, etc.  That means they have to be the best of us.  They have to be the most trustworthy, most honorable, most level headed.  I agree that the uniform may have the impact you described in the prison guard experiment, so we need people who can resist that (if it can be resisted.)  

 

 

I agree. As I read your comment the thought that came to my mind was the people least likely to be overcome by the power, are also the least likely to become police officers (and likely to be the least effective).  I didn't succumb to the power...but then I'm not the stereotypical guard.  My friends teased me about being a "female Barney Fife".  My fellow officers told me all the time that I was "too nice."  (I was very strict about the rules, but I was kind to the inmates.  It served me well.  They almost always did what I asked without arguing....my fellow guards didn't get that co-operation.)

 

I could never be a police officer.  I don't even want that job.  I'm grateful that there are some who do.  But as you said, we NEED police to be the best among us.  We need them to be modern day Captain Moronis and Helamans to do a difficult job well, and without becoming drunk with power.  It's not impossible.  I have an uncle who is a retired officer and I trust that he was firm, fair and consistent.  But I also fear that the uniform and power tend to attract people who are more likely to be overcome by the power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

P.S.--Unixknight--are you familiar with Tim Wise?  I just listened to a really powerful speech of his on YouTube.  It's about an hour long, but it was worth the time.  I think you would like it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing that. I think I'd heard of that study some years ago but had forgotten about it.

I was once debating a subject like this and someone said "Cops are like everybody else, they will make mistakes just as much as everybody else, so this is a non-issue."

To which I responded that that isn't good enough. Police officers have a variety of authority and powers that I, as an ordinary citizen, do not. They can carry guns anywhere they want, they can make arrests, they can carry police issue pepper spray, they can block traffic, etc. That means they have to be the best of us. They have to be the most trustworthy, most honorable, most level headed. I agree that the uniform may have the impact you described in the prison guard experiment, so we need people who can resist that (if it can be resisted.)

The trouble is too many people are unwilling to look at it objectively. The hero-worship causes a confirmation bias that leads people to minimize and even ignore the obvious problems. That, in turn causes people to galvanize, roughly along political lines, and it becomes just another deadlocked issue.

While I agree that we want our police to meet a higher standard, I think it's not a bad thing to acknowledge that the standard we really want is probably unattainable. Nanny states require nannies, and nannies have power, and power corrupts.

The framers had it right--limited government, minimal regulation and high personal autonomy; so that (among other things) imperfect cops have as few statutory pretexts as possible to get themselves and the citizenry in trouble as possible. Any law that's "enforceable" mans, ultimately, that resistors will be subject to physical force and, if they continue to resist, death; so before we pass a law it behooves us to ask whether we, as a society, are willing to kill in order to see that law honored.

For example, going back to the Garner death: Selling unpackaged cigarettes as a citeable offense? Really?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The framers had it right--limited government, minimal regulation and high personal autonomy; so that (among other things) imperfect cops have as few statutory pretexts as possible to get themselves and the citizenry in trouble as possible. 

 

This is really an excellent point.  That limit echoes the way it is now, where the courts are our last stand against police impropriety.  If we lose that... we're proper screwed.

Edited by unixknight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

While I agree that we want our police to meet a higher standard, I think it's not a bad thing to acknowledge that the standard we really want is probably unattainable. Nanny states require nannies, and nannies have power, and power corrupts.

The framers had it right--limited government, minimal regulation and high personal autonomy; so that (among other things) imperfect cops have as few statutory pretexts as possible to get themselves and the citizenry in trouble as possible. Any law that's "enforceable" mans, ultimately, that resistors will be subject to physical force and, if they continue to resist, death; so before we pass a law it behooves us to ask whether we, as a society, are willing to kill in order to see that law honored.

For example, going back to the Garner death: Selling unpackaged cigarettes as a citeable offense? Really?

 

JAG, I confess I had to look up what "nanny state", I wasn't familiar with that term.  :)   I'm glad you brought this up.  I've been pondering something along this line.  I've always been a proponent of smaller government (I base this on Pres. Benson's speech, The Proper Role of Government).  And yet, lately I find myself understanding a bit more clearly (I think . . . ) why federal government is necessary.  And I am finding myself more and more impressed by the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the balance they tried to create between state's rights and federal government.  I'm realizing now, more than ever that both are needed. 

While I favor a smaller federal government, I realize now that slavery ended because of the federal government (and a war).  Jim Crow was ended because of the Federal Government.   And now...the Federal Government is looking into some of these cases of alleged police brutality (I say alleged for everyone else's benefit.  :)  I definitely see police brutality happening.   If states were left to their own initiatives, we might still have slavery or Jim Crow.  

 

And while I try to resist the tendency to make everything political, I can see now why many black people are Democrats and why they would favor a larger Federal government.  Personally, I'm still not a fan of larger Federal Government, but hope for the balance I believe the Founding Fathers intended...and yet even they created this country with slavery in place.  

 

Life is messy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

I actually found myself musing on of we just got rid of police... any thoughts?

 

I don't know; I'll have to ponder on that some more.  My first thought was 'what and return to Wild West justice?  No thanks!'   And yet, in Biblical times, or in Book of Mormon times I don't remember police being mentioned.  How did they deal with crime and such?  Very interesting question Backroads.  

 

Edited to add:  I just ran across this and I haven't taken time to read it yet, but since it's related, I thought I would share.  

 

A Brief History of Slavery and the Origins of American Policing

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually found myself musing on of we just got rid of police... any thoughts?

 

The thought of that scares me. I like having police.  While I don't like getting a ticket even when knowing I'm at fault, I have had to use the police force on numerous occasions. Both personally and professionally. I need them around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, I confess I had to look up what "nanny state", I wasn't familiar with that term. :) I'm glad you brought this up. I've been pondering something along this line. I've always been a proponent of smaller government (I base this on Pres. Benson's speech, The Proper Role of Government). And yet, lately I find myself understanding a bit more clearly (I think . . . ) why federal government is necessary. And I am finding myself more and more impressed by the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and the balance they tried to create between state's rights and federal government. I'm realizing now, more than ever that both are needed.

While I favor a smaller federal government, I realize now that slavery ended because of the federal government (and a war). Jim Crow was ended because of the Federal Government. And now...the Federal Government is looking into some of these cases of alleged police brutality (I say alleged for everyone else's benefit. :) I definitely see police brutality happening. If states were left to their own initiatives, we might still have slavery or Jim Crow.

And while I try to resist the tendency to make everything political, I can see now why many black people are Democrats and why they would favor a larger Federal government. Personally, I'm still not a fan of larger Federal Government, but hope for the balance I believe the Founding Fathers intended...and yet even they created this country with slavery in place.

Life is messy.

Sure; people always love a powerful institution or person, when they think that power will be used for their personal benefit in perpetuity. At one point, the elevation to power of Messrs Hitler, Stalin and Mao seemed like a good idea to millions of people who would later die in concentration camps, gulags, and reeducation centers that those leaders would set up.

I'm not really talking about federalism so much as small government at every level (though the federalist in me demands to point out that before the Federal government fought the Civil War, the Federal Government handed down the Dred Scott decision saying that states had no right to prohibit slavery within their borders; and before Jim Crow, there was the "corrupt bargain" of 1876 that ended Reconstruction prematurely and threw black Americans in the Deep South to the wolves). The abuses you speak of arose from--in fact, depended on the complicity of--governmental entities. An appropriately limited local government would never have claimed authority to enact Jim Crow legislation; and wouldn't have concerned itself with enforcing the "property rights" of slaveowners.

Did you know that the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government can use price-control legislation to fine a farmer for growing wheat on his own land for his own use?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure; people always love a powerful institution or person, when they think that power will be used for their personal benefit in perpetuity. At one point, the elevation to power of Messrs Hitler, Stalin and Mao seemed like a good idea to millions of people who would later die in concentration camps, gulags, and reeducation centers that those leaders would set up.

 

I once debated a co-worker over some issue where the President grabbed some power or another.  The co-worker was perfectly at ease with it until I asked him "Will you still be okay with the President having that power when there's eventually a Republican in office?"  That completely shut him down.

 

People forget that just because you're comfortable with that powerful institution/person now doesn't mean it won't be abused later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S.--Unixknight--are you familiar with Tim Wise?  I just listened to a really powerful speech of his on YouTube.  It's about an hour long, but it was worth the time.  I think you would like it.  

 

Just listened to it.  I liked it.  (Could have done without the healthcare tangent though)  What he is saying makes a lot of sense in terms of the perspective on this being different for different racial groups and why.

 

I'd also add that there was a time when I felt safer seeing a police car around.  I don't anymore.  I now feel less safe with a cop present, and I suspect that's a perspective shared by minorities who have historically been treated badly by law enforcement.  (Of course, I live in Prince George's County and I work in Baltimore City, two places where the police have a less than stellar reputation.)   

 

The thing that awakened me again to the problem of racism is these recent killings of  unarmed black men by white cops... NONE of the high profile examples have gone to trial, not one, even in situations where if it had been a civilian pulling the trigger, a trial would be guaranteed with a very real possibility of a conviction.

 

I guess a lot of badges are shaped like shields for a reason...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may run counter to "limited government" policing, but "broken windows" has done much good--especially for NYC.  The theory is that if law enforcement allows "minor" laws to go unenforced (such as laws against owners leaving windows unmaintained--broken), then criminals perceive that there is laxity in the area, and the begin to engage in serious criminal activity.  So, when "broken windows" type laws are enforced more serious crimes are prevented.  Ironically, enforcing the small stuff is something some would call "nanny-state policing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would view police forces and limited government as orthogonal.  Police forces enforce most laws against criminal acts, whatever those laws are.  Limited government simply means that government should be presumed unnecessary until proven necessary to achieve some common good for society that nobody else can provide, such as defending the nation, enforcing private contracts, protecting the environment, and ensuring free and fair competition in markets.

 

And if I recall correctly, the "broken windows" school of thought included many things beyond broken windows.  I seem to recall that thugs and gang members in some New York City boroughs regularly jumped the subway turnstiles before Mayor Giuliani cracked down and started arresting the scofflaws, sometimes chaining them together in public before the paddy wagon arrived.  This, too, started persuading people that breaking the law carried consequences.

 

That's why I generally oppose laws that are not enforced.  They degrade the force of all laws.  In my own state of California it is illegal to use a suction-cup mount to attach your smart phone to most areas on the inside of your windshield, but lots of drivers (and all Uber drivers I have seen) use them and the police don't seem to care much.  I myself used one for almost two years before this law became known to me.  I now have a mount that sits in my car's cupholder, which works okay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm going to go very, very unpopular here (especially since this board has it's share of cops).  I feel for the families that lost their loved ones, but I have difficulty getting past the uniform.  I was raised on a block where there was a cop who would come out and hassle and threaten us kids every time he got drunk.  He was always on a power trip telling us that he put kids in jail for less than what we did (what, ride our bikes up and down the street?).  In my schools, I've had school cops put their hands on their guns while smiling at us, intimidating students, and other run-ins that only added to my disdain.

 

What finally clinched it for me are the corrupt, lazy, needling deputies in jail that wanted to egg us on to do something.  I wasn't taken to medical after being attacked then later passed out on the floor from the concussion I got.  I was a "good" inmate who didn't cause any troubles but they pulled me out and made it look like I was snitching.  Fortunately, I was big enough and proved myself that no one in my pod messed with me.  Then they raided and took away all kinds of legal papers and let the trustees come in and take our stores.  Complain?  Please, the complaint forms went to the deputies and we were straight out told that they were not going to be forwarded. 

 

I have Sheriffs and LAPD in my ward that I socialize with, but I have difficulty looking past their badges.  So I get why there's so much anger towards the police and their feeling of alienation that no one is listening.

 

Do I agree with their methods? No, burning their neighborhoods and generally getting violent isn't acceptable.  But if no one is willing to do something to reign in the bad cops or the ones on power trips but shield them, well, you get a tarnishing of the decent cops and a whole lot of frustrated people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Often heaven is expressed as a wealthy high end gated community with the likes of streets paved in gold.  I have seldom heard of heaven being a place where shadowy figures walk around in sweat hoodies or where there is a lack or respect for authority.  At the same time I have never envisioned heaven as a society employing police to keep the peace or enforce laws.

 

For those that think particular laws unjust - police or anyone enforcing laws is an intrusion of freedom and rights of an individual.  There are questions - such as what to do about unjust laws?  Do we live by law as a society or do we live by the lowest common denominator of law?  If we live by the lowest common denominator of law then the only way to enforce laws on such a society is by what we often refer to as draconian methods.

 

Many historical individuals (Christ and Gandhi examples) suggest there is a way to overcome draconian methods of enforcing the law and it is not by fighting fire with fire - resorting to draconian acts of rebellion. Violence begats violence which begats more violence.  The only peaceful answer to end violence is ?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 The only peaceful answer to end violence is ?????

 

 

A change in human nature, which many believe is simply the motion of God through our souls.

 

I love old movies but I tend to avoid watching any movies made after 1970 or so.  The violence, language, and crude behavior are bad enough, but what really bothers me is the wave of enjoyment that sweeps through the audience when the villain is killed or tortured at the end.  Sure, I stood up and cheered when the Death Star exploded in Star Wars, but over the years I have come to realize something important: that it's wrong to glamorize any human suffering, even when the bad guy deserves it and really gets it in the end with a chainsaw through the skull.  It stokes and strokes the animal core of our psyches and reinforces revenge and retribution as human norms.  Star Wars couldn't end with the entire Imperial Army apologizing and marching off to anger-management classes, but part of me thinks that violence will be around until we replace revenge and retribution with repentance and redemption.  (My, look at all those re- words.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are societies that have existed in peace.  In fact there are several in recorded history.  Now, I must admit something that I do not understand - especially with a religious consideration.  All peaceful societies have ended badly.  I am particularly disappointed  in the demise (genocide) of the Lucayan Society by Christians of all peoples.   The Lucayan were a peaceful society that did not even have a word for war in their native vocabulary.   When discovered by Christians; missionaries were sent to convert them to "the True Religion".  But when they did not convert - interestingly not one single person - The Christians destroyed every man, woman and child of that society.  The Lucayans had no protection - no weapons to even defend themselves.  It is believed that most were sold into slavery for their unwillingness to become Christians.  The sad truth is that there is no DNA evidence that anyone survived.  Why would G-d allow such a thing???  The only reason and valid excuse I have been able to rationalize is to given witness to the world that Traditional Trinitarian Christianity had completely sunk into absolute apostasy and in reality was no more devoted to Christ than any other religion that has survived the brutality and violence of the Dark Ages. 

 

A restoration is mankind's only hope. 

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No police?

 

Welcome to the Philippines.

 

Ohh... yes, there is police, but they're largely ineffective.  What's the speed limit?  Who knows... there's one but nobody cares about it because there's nobody to impose it.  So, we have buses running over children on bicycles... why are the bicycles on the path of the buses?  Because, nobody says they can't - even if there is a law about it.  You can go to YouTube and see the "crazy Filipino drivers".

 

And that's just cars... we can go on to home invasions and personal protection next... So, my brother was standing around outside the church when this idiot punched him out of the blue and tried to cut him with a knife... for no other reason than to cause trouble.  Why did he do it in wide-open public square?  Because he can.  In normal circumstances, this punk would have just gone on his business to wreck havoc somewhere else... Unfortunately, he doesn't know that my brother is a member of the biggest family in town... so, my uncles found him and blew out his kneecaps as a reminder to him and his "gang" to stay clear of the town.  Well, a few months later, the gang came back to town and threw rocks at a town dance hitting my aunt on the temple... why?  Because they can!  Unfortunately, they picked the wrong town... I'm fairly certain that punk ended up in the bottom of the ocean.

 

I mean, if that's how you want to enforce American law, that's fine and good.  It sure works in the Philippines - criminals tend to be more careful about messing with strong families... but in the US where families are nuclear... dunno how you envision getting people to respect any of your laws...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share