Police are people, too

[KoPilot]

Reins.

Um, well, let's imagine its not police. Let's say its black people. Yuck, huh? We know how that plays out. Or, as another example I saw in this forum that is sex workers. We know that there are areas of sex work that are NOT good, that are relent on traffic and abuse. We also know that lots of people choose careers in this industry by choice. Is there not correlation there?

Not even apples to oranges... this is like, apples to bricks. Complete false equivocation here.

Sex workers have no political power. Black people have very limited political power, most of which is a catch 22 or just plain symbolic anyhow. "Being black" isn't a choice either, cripes.

Cops? Cops are allowed to turn their back on the mayor of NYC. If you don't have the support of the police union, that actually means something.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[KoPilot]

I am not talking about choices, I am talking about 'lumping people together'. You asked how it makes life harder for good police if people say they are all corrupt killers. I say it makes it harder because they are human. It makes it harder in the same way any group of people impacted by bigotry suffer hardship. That does NOT equal the same as saying I think bad cops are excuse able. But I do feel that as well as their job they are people. Human beings who go home to families, live in communities, and who as well as being professional need to be not hardened cynics against a society who has hatred to them. Creating a them / us situation is more often a problem than a solution.

I completely reject all of this for a number of reasons, but I'm not going to go into that again here. Suffice to say, if the law says you're allowed to use lethal force against another human being under situations where no other class of person is, you are in a unique category and should be critiqued as others see fit. Once again, the police are an institution, and need to be analyzed as such.

It's like saying there are "good" white supremacists, the ones that don't "hurt" anybody, who just believe that they're doing the right thing by fighting for white rights, and there are "bad" white supremacists who do go out and break the law and commit acts of violence, but we should avoid lumping them all together because they're all human and have families and loved ones and hopes and fears and each is their own special snowflake. Nope. Not buying it.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[midwestyankee]

1. Describe the color red to someone who has never seen it before.

That's impossible, just like your questions are impossible to answer by the way you stated them. I should respond by asking you how you define a civilian. We could go at each other like this for a very long time. You and I both agree that to kill an innocent person is wrong. There are going to be situations where an innocent person will be thought to be armed with a gun and killed. That is a sad reality we have to live with.

If you can fix it so that never happens, I'm with you, but we need police to do a job. They carry a lethal weapon with them while doing that job. Sometimes there will be judgement mistakes made. Sometimes there are just bad cops. But the bulk of them are good people trying to do a very difficult job. If we say they are all corrupt killers looking for their next black man to kill, that only makes the job more difficult for the good cops who are just trying to enforce the law.

1. A civilian is a non-police officer. Now answer the question. You put the word "innocent" in there to allow for the excuse that it's ok for a police officer to shoot someone who is not innocent. Unless the person is in the act of committing a crime, how does the officer make this determination? And, when he does so, is his determination the same thing as a fair trial by jury?

2. "Sometimes there will be judgment mistakes made." You say this as if it's the only possible reason for excessive police violence. It's not.

3. You are under the mistaken opinion that I believe that all police officers are corrupt killers. Prove that I have said that. You can't.

Since you won't answer a simple question, it's clear that you're unwilling to actually discuss this. Too bad. I was willing and I tried to engage you in one.

 

[subwannabe]

Everyone in the United States has the right to a fair trial and I think that is one of our most precious constitutional rights. Of course I believe that police officers deserve a fair trial. For the record, Darren Wilson never went to trial so his case is mostly irrelevant to the question.

So, now that we both agree that all deserve a fair trial, I'll take the next step. Do you believe that a police officer acting alone in the field provides a fair trial in the same sense as is guaranteed by the Constitution?

You never answered my question after I answered yours:

Do you agree that Darren Wilson did no wrong?

 

[IrisAlthea]

You also run because you are a criminal and don't want to be caught. No, he shouldn't have been killed for running, but the fact remains that he did run. Running is NEVER a good thing to do. You escalate the situation. It as a simple traffic stop for a broken tail light, until the driver decided to run.

We all agree that the cop was wrong for shooting and killing him. We don't need to keep discussing that as a bad thing that shouldn't have happened. We all know it shouldn't have happened. The cop was wrong and he's been arrested for murder. But, this is just a single case. You can't judge all police by this one cop going too far.

I know, you'll have other cases to bring up, and I understand that. But I've said before, the times when cops do good things, help victims when they have been mugged, help victims when they have been robbed or find murderers with investigations, those are never publicized. They aren't news worthy, so we don't hear about those.

So, because we only hear about the bad times, people assume there aren't any good times. We hear about these bad things that have gone wrong and that makes it seem like all cops are bad, all cops are murderers, all cops are corrupted and there just aren't any good ones out there. They are all sociopaths looking for another unarmed black man to kill, another notch on their gun, another story to tell while sitting in a bar with his fellow cops.

This was a bad thing to happen. And it's very sad that the guy is dead. Every situation like that is bad when someone is killed, for no reason at all. But this isn't the way all cops are. If you feel like it is, I'm sorry for you, because you look at life from a very dark place.

I never once said that all cops are this way or that.
I do however disagree with your idea that they are just people too.

What I'm saying is that I expect them to be better than just being like most people because they have more power than people in general.
I'm also saying that at the moment it is pretty clear that they are actually worse than people in general.

What makes me scared is the attitude that it's sad shen things go wrong, but oh well. Mostly it goes right and hey, you have to break some eggs etc.
This is a position you can only afford if you are
A) Pollyanna and think everything happens for the best in the end
B) Under the impression that you and yours could never end up being the egg, for some strange reason and don't feel for the people who do experience this.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[IrisAlthea]

How? They have more responsibility and training in some respects but they ARE just people. Often people with fairly low educational attainment, in that they might have school leavers exams, but no finer education on ethics, philosophy or anything that might lift them above the often unpleasant acts they see that make them hard, cynical and embittered.

If we go around saying 'this group of people is bad, we hate them' there are so e potential impacts on the way the individuals feel, and this will feed the way an Institution feels I agree with the institution think here I believe.

I do not think we can hand over our responsibility to others and say 'he must better'. This is different to trusting some we have entrusted with jobs of governance or medicine, policing and whatever else.....people train and do jobs and have roles.....and responsibilities, but they are all just people. We are all just people.

I expect them to be better than the general population at the tasks they are supposed to do.
Just like I expect my mechanic to know more about fixing cars than the general public and just like I know that I'm expected to have both better skills and a suitable personality for my profession.

If you are Joe Average and drive faster than the speed limit allows, then you can say "Hey, I'm just human" but if you are a traffic cop or a judge for example the standards should be higher.

I wrote about this in post 64 too.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[IrisAlthea]

Yes, I remember , . But I think we are talking a crucial aspect now of human nature. Police are not selected for human nature, and yet we are expecting them to have better human nature not only under pressure of job but under Social pressure. Kopilot asks why it should impact on the police if people say they are all awful, I say because they are human. Because it turns us into us and them. For the same reason I feel representation is a good way forward in the forces, and see the story posted about the five bigoted cops resigning as a Good news story.

I don't know.
Personally, I'd be horrified if I saw my collegues making a mockery of my chosen profession and getting away with it.
I would expect society to react and be deeply disappointed if things were swept under the rug.

Also, refusing to write the problems off as a couple of bad apples still doesn't equal saying that all cops are bad.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[midwestyankee]

You never answered my question after I answered yours:

Do you agree that Darren Wilson did no wrong?

Darren Wilson shot an unarmed man who was at least twenty feet or more away from him. If that's not wrong, what is? I know, you're going to come back with "but he was charging Wilson" or "but he was a thug, a proven criminal" or something along those lines. If Darren Wilson was incapable of defusing that situation without murder, then he never should have been there behind a badge in the first place.

Of course he did something wrong: he shot an unarmed man when he could have left the man alive and arrested him.

 

[subwannabe]

Just proved my point. You aren't interested in fair trials at all. Not only didn't a local grand jury find any charges to file against Darren Wilson but Obama and Holder, who were trying like hell to find something to charge him with, after a thurough investigation, couldn't find anything to charge him with either. But, even after that, you find him guilty anyway. How can you be so two faced and hypocritical to demand fair trials for the criminals but you refuse to accept the results of two seperate investigations exonerating Darren Wilson, one of which tried their best to charge him with something?

 

[midwestyankee]

Just proved my point. You aren't interested in fair trials at all. Not only didn't a local grand jury find any charges to file against Darren Wilson but Obama and Holder, who were trying like hell to find something to charge him with, after a thurough investigation, couldn't find anything to charge him with either. But, even after that, you find him guilty anyway. How can you be so two faced and hypocritical to demand fair trials for the criminals but you refuse to accept the results of two seperate investigations exonerating Darren Wilson, one of which tried their best to charge him with something?

You didn't ask if he was blameless in the eye of the law. You asked if I believed he had done something wrong. That's two entirely different things. He clearly did something wrong because a man died because of his actions who should not have died. But that's not the legal finding. Surely you agree that it's wrong to kill an unarmed man, right?

Example: do you believe that OJ Simpson did anything wrong related to the death of his wife and Ron Goodman? Probably not, but he was exonerated by the court. Does the fact that OJ was found not guilty mean that he did nothing wrong?

 

[DVS]

And this is an example of fighting from within. Five people who have potentially nailed their colours to the mast In their community. I hope that woman is a success at her job. Its not how it should have to be, but she carries weight of representation on her shoulders as well as her job's responsibilities.

Parma, Missouri, has only 713 people in its population and like many small towns, it's losing people every year. I'd guess there are no jobs for the younger people so they are moving to where the jobs are, leaving just the older people, who slowly die off.

Also, this might not have anything to do with race or sex discrimination, because it doesn't mention the color of those who resigned. All but one of the police force (most of them are part time), the city attorney, and water treatment supervisor quit. The outgoing mayor has been in office roughly 35 years, but not all in one term. He was reelected at least once.

The town really doesn't need that many cops, if you ask me. I grew up in a small town of approximately 2,000 people, and we only had 5 police. Two of them weren't even old enough to carry a gun. It's possible that the town is better off without these people and will save some money. If nothing else, it will give the new mayor a chance to start with a clean slate and hire her own people. I also hear she ran on a corruption ticket, saying she was going to clean up the town. She had previously worked as a clerk, so she might have some facts from working under the outgoing mayor.

Those who left stated safety issues. That could mean anything or nothing. I also heard that when they left, they wiped clean the hard drives clean. That could mean they had something to hide. When any official is in office for so long, things can become corrupted. Sometimes the job can take a slide where family is hired for important positions and work bids can be given to the same companies over and over. That can also mean corruption in that payment for said work bids can be inflated. And those quitting could cover up any corruption by quitting before any investigation is done, and hinder any of that by wiping the hard drives clean helps with that, too.

So, the majority of the police force has quit, timed with the outgoing mayor's loss, the hard drives wiped clean and the length of time the previous mayor was in office could all could point to simple corruption. It might have nothing to do with the race of the new mayor, or her sex. I'd think it's more likely that there was something crooked going on in that small town and maybe the 700 or so people decided it was time for a change.

 

[subwannabe]

Midwest: Believe it or not, we live in a grey world. It is not always wrong to kill an unarmed man. Let's say that someone (will call him black) has broken into the front door of your house in the dark and you thought you saw him with a gun. You quickly run into your bedroom to get your gun and load it. Unknown to you the invader was actually holding a crowbar to break into your gun cabinet with and you come out firing, giving him a sixpack (no, not beer) and kill him. You tell the police that he broke into your house and that he had a gun but the police find no gun, only the crowbar. Do you think you should be arrested and charged for killing an unarmed black man? So what that he broke into your house. You shot and killed an unarmed black man! You clearly did something wrong because a man died because of your actions who should not have died. His family says that he's a good boy (15 years old) and that he had no intention of harming you and didn't even know you were home, he just wanted to steal one of your guns because he needed one for protection and couldn't afford to buy one. Should you rot in jail for what you did?

 

[midwestyankee]

Midwest: Believe it or not, we live in a grey world. It is not always wrong to kill an unarmed man. Let's say that someone (will call him black) has broken into the front door of your house and you thought you saw him with a gun. You quickly run into your bedroom to get your gun and load it. Unknown to you the invader was actually holding a crowbar to break into your gun cabinet with and you come out firing, giving him a sixpack (no, not beer) and kill him. You tell the police that he broke into your house and that he had a gun but the police find no gun, only the crowbar. Do you think you should be arrested and charged for killing an unarmed black man? So what that he broke into your house. You shot and killed an unarmed black man! You clearly did something wrong because a man died because of your actions who should not have died. His family says that he's a good boy (15 years old) and that he had no intention of harming you and didn't even know you were home, he just wanted to steal one of your guns because he needed one for protection and couldn't afford to buy one. Should you rot in jail for what you did?

Self-defense is largely accepted as a reasonable excuse for a violent action. How about if you answer the actual question I posed instead of dodging?

 

[DVS]

Lol um... there are not one, but TWO cable TV channels that literally show nothing but cops being the good guys. And let's not forget that this VERY NEW trend in mainstream media reporting when a cop has done something heinously wrong wouldn't have even started happening without the Ferguson riots. And even then, the news always still manages to villanize the victim. So don't even go there with that pity party shit.

I'm poor and don't have the money for cable. I've got a cheap $15 antenna and don't have the luxury of seeing either of those TWO cable TV channels you mention. I'd guess many others are in the same boat as me and so they don't know about those channels, either.

And I don't know that mainstream media you are watching or reading, but I try to find a non biased source, so I get the whole story...or find one that is totally against my views, so I can see what others believe. I've been reading the BBC web site for several years, now. They aren't even in the US, so they are in the outside looking in when it comes to US race issues.

Every story, yes I said EVERY story states the same words, almost like they have a hot key to insert the words "unarmed black man killed by a white cop". Now, I understand that they aren't saying anything that wasn't true, but when you say that, some people add "innocent" to that phrase. While sometimes there is an innocent victim in the story, that isn't always the case. But, just stating that phrase I have put in quotes can stir up violence instead of just reporting the news.

I can't fault the BBC, because that sensationalism brings in readers. And because those readers are in the UK, the BBC can be their only outlet for information about our racial issues over here. I'm not saying the BBC shouldn't continue this practice, if it's working for them. But, people should look around for the whole story, when it comes down to an issue as volatile as racism is.

 

[DVS]

The bolded part is what matters. Police officers do not have the right to murder people. If it were just a case of roughing up some folks in the course of arresting them, that would be entirely different and might even be excusable in some cases. But in no case is murder acceptable.

Despite the fact that you keep insisting you think it's wrong for the police to use excessive force, you always conclude by saying that the people they murdered were somehow complicit in the murder. If they did bad things they should expect to be arrested. But that's all. Until you admit that the police do not have the right to murder people without any but clauses in which you also blame the victims, I will continue to believe that you don't really believe there's anything wrong with the excessive force in these cases.

Go ahead. Prove me wrong.

I didn't say there is nothing wrong with the excessive force and the killing of people when they run from police. There is no reason someone should be killed, if they are simply running away. But you seem to think every police officer is behind this, and if given the chance, would do the same thing. That's just not true.

I've said before that we don't see the good things that police do. We just see the bad things. It's like an iceberg. The bad things are above the surface and the good things are below, where we never see them. If you don't agree with me on that, we'll never agree on anything and might as well just call this whole thing quits. What do you think about that?

 

[DVS]

...What other job, what other class of citizen, has gotten a show like Cops? None, really. They've been working us for a long time.

You've never heard of "Keeping up with the Kardashians" or any of the other shows on cable? I've been to my sister's house and she's stuck on some show about a family with husband, wife and two kids (boy and girl) who are filthy rich and the show is about nothing except their day to day lives. It's a pretty popular show, from what I can see. It sure has my sister hooked. And there are no cops in that show at all.

Just for clarification, I've never seen Keeping up with the Kardashians, but I can safely say I'd never care to. And anybody heard of Snooky? I don't remember the name of the show, but I've never seen that show either. I don't think I even need to mention the name, if you've heard of that name. And there is also one with two wealthy socialites (sorry, I forget their names) and how they go about their daily lives. Don't forget the shows that have several wealthy women on them...I think their is more than one, since the first one did so well. Sorry, don't know the name of those, either. I'm sure I could go on, if I actually had cable TV, but I don't. These are just shows I've heard other people talk about.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[midwestyankee]

I didn't say there is nothing wrong with the excessive force and the killing of people when they run from police. There is no reason someone should be killed, if they are simply running away. But you seem to think every police officer is behind this, and if given the chance, would do the same thing. That's just not true.

I've said before that we don't see the good things that police do. We just see the bad things. It's like an iceberg. The bad things are above the surface and the good things are below, where we never see them. If you don't agree with me on that, we'll never agree on anything and might as well just call this whole thing quits. What do you think about that?

I do agree and have stated such that we don't get the good news in our newspapers. But that's not limited to police activities. Except for sports and occasional stories about high-achieving students, we rarely ever see good news in the papers because that's how papers work. You might as well complain that hospitals never treat well people.

And again, I bolded what I think is a false accusation. Never once have I stated that all police officers are corrupt or even violently dangerous. If you can prove that I have said this before, then please show the proof. Otherwise, shut the fuck up on this point and engage me where I am and not where your imagination hopes I am so you can keep arguing with a fake.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[DVS]

I do agree and have stated such that we don't get the good news in our newspapers. But that's not limited to police activities. Except for sports and occasional stories about high-achieving students, we rarely ever see good news in the papers because that's how papers work. You might as well complain that hospitals never treat well people.

And again, I bolded what I think is a false accusation. Never once have I stated that all police officers are corrupt or even violently dangerous. If you can prove that I have said this before, then please show the proof. Otherwise, shut the fuck up on this point and engage me where I am and not where your imagination hopes I am so you can keep arguing with a fake.

Starting to get testy? There's no need for that. I may have falsely lumped you in with others in this thread who seem to feel all police are corrupt and would jump at the chance to kill a black person and then all others would help them cover it up. If you're not one of those, I didn't mean to accuse you of it. But it does seem like there are more here who feel that way than don't.

But, just as I may have mistaken your position, don't assume my imagination is running rampant. This is a two sided discussion and I think I've stated my position well enough for someone to understand it. You might consider my points as fake, but I don't. We're just on opposing sides. As long as this all stays low key and civil, I'll stick around. But by telling me to shut the fuck up and accusing me of imagining things you've said, you aren't helping. Simply telling me that I must have misunderstood you should suffice.