Good Cops?

[Christian Liberty]

All cops are bad – by definition.

Harsh statement? Certainly. It does not make it less true – like an accurate terminal cancer diagnosis. Pretending otherwise doesn’t alter the reality.Whether the cops themselves areconscious of their badness is immaterial.
No doubt, many cops (as distinct from peace officers) believe in their hearts (and perhaps even their minds) that they are “good men” doing righteous work.
It does not make it so.



Read more below:
http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/12/24/good-cops/

Thoughts?

[heavenlyboy34]

As usual, Eric is spot-on. Throw 'em in the woods.

[Christian Liberty]

As usual, Eric is spot-on. Throw 'em in the woods.

I thought he was mostly right. That which I didn't agree on I addressed in the comments section.

[phill4paul]

Good cops.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ea_1387991405#Qzly0tfesfz2BxXe.16&use_old_player=0

[Anti Federalist]

I'm sure Eric does not mind posting in its entirety.

For the record, of course, I agree, I've been making the same exact argument for years now.



Good Cops?

by eric • December 24, 2013

http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/12/24/good-cops/

All cops are bad – by definition.

Harsh statement? Certainly. It does not make it less true – like an accurate terminal cancer diagnosis. Pretending otherwise doesn’t alter the reality.

Whether the cops themselves are conscious of their badness is immaterial.

No doubt, many cops (as distinct from peace officers) believe in their hearts (and perhaps even their minds) that they are “good men” doing righteous work.

It does not make it so.

The average Nazi functionary was not a frothing fanatic, either. He was a good German with a wife and kids he doted on, who – in his own mind – believed he was doing the right thing.

Which, in his mind, meant enforcing the laws of the state.

The East German Stasi man believed this also.

Just as buzz cut Officer 82nd Airborne believes it today.

Most cops are probably not conscious sadists – though of course, many are.

They enforce the laws. It’s what they do. It does not matter what the law is. Merely that it is the law. Many will tell you so themselves. The law is the law. I’m just doing my job.

The same things were said in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, everywhere that authority rather than right was reverenced.

Or where the two were confused and regarded as the same thing.

As has become the case in the U.S. today.

Most of the laws on the books (as in Nazi Germany, as in the Soviet Union, as in post-war East Germany) criminalize innumerable actions (and even non-actions, such as failing to buy now-mandatory health insurance) that involve no harm to other people or their property – but rather constitute “offenses” against the state and its statutes.

It is the job of cops to force people to submit and obey – period.

Cops are not expected to consider the rightness or wrongness of an action as such; only whether a given action (or non-action) is illegal. It is the same mentality expressed by a genuinely bewildered Adolf Eichmann at his trial in Israel for war crimes.

He was merely following orders.

Inevitably, as this corruption of the soul takes hold, any challenge to the state’s limitless authority becomes – in the minds of those charged with protecting the state’s authority – the essence of wrongness.

And the response to any perceived threat to this authority grows ever more brutal and disproportionate.

Evildoers must be punished. A Manichean – but morally subjective – worldview takes hold. Ordnung muss sein.

It rapidly takes on the fervor of a crusade, becomes strident and militant, harsh – a sickening admixture of obeisance to and worshipfulness of the state.

There is talk of heroes. Not in reference to people to people who risk their own lives to try to help save another person’s life. But in reference to those who take other people’s lives (or merely ruin them) in order to enforce compliance with the state’s authority.

They talked about heroes in Soviet Russia, too.

And there was the cult of the soldat in National Socialist Germany – where the highest honor was to wear a uniform and to “serve.”

Does it sound familiar?

Echoes from the past, unheeded.

But there is this crucial difference between cops in the United State (singular, on purpose – in the interests of editorial accuracy) and the enforcer class in the Union of Soviet Soviet Socialist Republics, the Deutsche Demokratische Republik or its nationalsozialist predecessor: Cops in the United State have opted to abuse their fellow human beings when they could just as easily opt not to abuse them.

But they choose – freely – to abuse others.

To get paid to do it.

That makes them very bad indeed.

Worse, in fact, than someone like Eichmann or a Soviet or Stasi goon – since those guys literally faced the choice of doing as ordered or being thrown into a camp (or much worse) if they did not.

It was them – and their families – or someone else and his family.

A much harder choice.

No American cop faces this choice.

Not yet.

They can still walk away.

But very few ever do.

Instead, they enforce the law. Any law – all laws. As relentlessly, as remorselessly as their historical counterparts. They kick in doors and frog march people out of their homes at gunpoint (as in Boston) and elsewhere. They subject minor traffic scofflaws and even those who have scoffed no laws at all to repeated anal-digital (and vaginal digital) rape. They beat up – and murder – 13-year-olds. They summarily execute people’s pets (here and here). Always in the name of “doing their jobs.” And always without remorse. The prior linked-to items are not the exceptions. They are fast becoming the rule – the new normal. I’ve cataloged several hundred examples (see here).

And those who commit these atrocities do so by choice.

A guy may elect to pursue a career in law enforcement with naive but noble intent. He wants to spend his workdays protecting the public, going after criminals. But he soon finds that he will spend most of his “career” threatening to kidnap and cage people for having transgressed any of the endless multitude of statutes that define “offenses” against the state, but which entail no actual harm to other people or their property. He will “bust” people for having committed these offenses – knowing they’ve caused no harm to anyone. He will participate routinely in actions no different in their essence than the things for which his predecessors – from the Redcoats of 1776 to the SA men of 1936 – history excoriates.

Cognitive dissonance, of course, puts up a two-inch thick Plexiglass wall between his mind and his conscience – and he continues to enforce the law and feel good about doing it. Certainly, he does not feel guilty about what he does.

But cognitive dissonance does not absolve him of his crimes – and that’s what they are - any more than Eichmann’s plaintive excuse that he was just following orders – which of course he was – absolved him of his.

You tell me: Does a good man choose – freely – under no coercion – to put on a special outfit and abuse his fellow man at gunpoint?

And if he does, what do we make of him? What shall we call him?

Yes, it’s harsh a verdict.

But hard truths must be faced.

Else the insanity will never be checked.

Throw it in the Woods?

[Anti Federalist]

I thought he was mostly right. That which I didn't agree on I addressed in the comments section.

Which was?

[Christian Liberty]

Which was?

For instance, this portion of a paragraph:


They subject minor traffic scofflaws and even those who have scoffed no laws at all to repeated anal-digital (and vaginal digital) rape. They beat up – and murder – 13-year-olds. They summarily execute people’s pets (here and here). Always in the name of “doing their jobs.” And always without remorse. The prior linked-to items are not the exceptions. They are fast becoming the rule – the new normal. I’ve cataloged several hundred examples (see here).

There are obviously far too many cases of this. The thing is, Eric is addressing the so called "good cop". So, he'd be better suited to sticking to things that all cops do, rather than things that some cops do and get away with.


You tell me: Does a good man choose – freely – under no coercion – to put on a special outfit and abuse his fellow man at gunpoint?

I agree with Eric's reasoning here, however, I also recognize that most people are brainwashed into supporting "the law". Most people who choose to become cops don't go into it wanting to abuse their fellow man. I could just as easily say that 90+% of the country are bad people because they choose to SUPPORT the people who are doing these things, and it would be just as true.


Worse, in fact, than someone like Eichmann or a Soviet or Stasi goon – since those guys literally faced the choice of doing as ordered or being thrown into a camp (or much worse) if they did not.




Eric's view seems to be that the consequences of doing the right thing is the primary mitigating factor, while I view the knowledge of what is right to be much more important. I would view someone who knew that subjecting Jews to the firing squad was wrong, yet did so out of fear for his own life is more immoral than a cop who pulls someone over for "speeding" not knowing that this is wrong. Its a matter of degree though, not concept. I agree wiith Eric that they are all "bad". I also agree with basically everything else Eric said.

[otherone]

They enforce the laws. It’s what they do. It does not matter what the law is. Merely that it is the law. Many will tell you so themselves. The law is the law. I’m just doing my job.



If they objectively enforced the law, we would not vilify them, as they would be mere puppets. The problem is they selectively enforce the law based on THEIR discretion, which makes THEM the Law. It's the foundation of their collective megalomania.

http://associatesmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/judgedredd_i-am-the-law.jpg

[CaptUSA]

I have a friend that is a homicide detective. He's a good cop. He sees all sorts of "crimes" that he doesn't do anything about because no one is being harmed in his eyes. He's a good friend to have around when the blue-dressed bullies decide to pay us a visit for having a party.

As with most generalizations, there will be exceptions. I get Eric's point here, but there are cops out there that do good work. It's just that for every one of them, you have a couple hundred of the other ones. I suppose you could make the argument that my friend should buck the system and call out his coworkers... But then there'd just be one less good cop on the force when they usher him out. You could even make the argument that he uses the threat of enforcement of other laws to obtain evidence for his cases... I don't know enough about how he does his job, so this could be the case. It seems like he spends most of his time just gathering evidence to give to the DA for use at trial - he doesn't seem to care about what other people do, he's just looking at what evidence is out there and trying to gather more. There was a time when he was a "law enforcement officer", but he couldn't wait to get out. I didn't know him back then, but he talks about how much he hated it.

So can a good man be a good cop? Probably, but you have to go through the bad cop phase first.

[phill4paul]

If they objectively enforced the law, we would not vilify them, as they would be mere puppets. The problem is they selectively enforce the law based on THEIR discretion, which makes THEM the Law. It's the foundation of their collective megalomania.

http://associatesmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/judgedredd_i-am-the-law.jpg

I would still vilify them. Since they are not puppets and DO have a choice. Still, I understand your point.

[Christian Liberty]

I have a friend that is a homicide detective. He's a good cop. He sees all sorts of "crimes" that he doesn't do anything about because no one is being harmed in his eyes. He's a good friend to have around when the blue-dressed bullies decide to pay us a visit for having a party.

As with most generalizations, there will be exceptions. I get Eric's point here, but there are cops out there that do good work. It's just that for every one of them, you have a couple hundred of the other ones. I suppose you could make the argument that my friend should buck the system and call out his coworkers... But then there'd just be one less good cop on the force when they usher him out. You could even make the argument that he uses the threat of enforcement of other laws to obtain evidence for his cases... I don't know enough about how he does his job, so this could be the case. It seems like he spends most of his time just gathering evidence to give to the DA for use at trial - he doesn't seem to care about what other people do, he's just looking at what evidence is out there and trying to gather more. There was a time when he was a "law enforcement officer", but he couldn't wait to get out. I didn't know him back then, but he talks about how much he hated it.

So can a good man be a good cop? Probably, but you have to go through the bad cop phase first.

Fair point.

[Grubb556]

If they objectively enforced the law, we would not vilify them, as they would be mere puppets. The problem is they selectively enforce the law based on THEIR discretion, which makes THEM the Law. It's the foundation of their collective megalomania.

http://associatesmind.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/judgedredd_i-am-the-law.jpg

At least Judge Dredd is honest about his authoritarian power trip.

[libertarianMoney]

Cops can do good things despite being bad.

The system that cops work in is absolutely disgusting. The fact that someone can and is willing to survive in the average police force in America is evidence that they're not good people by any definition I'd use.

These men have to stand by and watch as the constitution they swear to protect is destroyed (if they're not destroying it themselves.) I find it hard to believe they have any credibility after that. While saying good or bad comes down to definitions, I certainly won't give them any credit.

[PRB]

"You tell me: Does a good man choose – freely – under no coercion – to put on a special outfit and abuse his fellow man at gunpoint?"

How about under incentive or bribery?

[youngbuck]

"You tell me: Does a good man choose – freely – under no coercion – to put on a special outfit and abuse his fellow man at gunpoint?"

How about under incentive or bribery?

Is it OK for Peter to pay Paul $100 to rob John at gunpoint for $300? No, a good man wouldn't give or except the money for such a purpose.

[heavenlyboy34]

Cops can do good things despite being bad.

The system that cops work in is absolutely disgusting. The fact that someone can and is willing to survive in the average police force in America is evidence that they're not good people by any definition I'd use.

These men have to stand by and watch as the constitution they swear to protect is destroyed (if they're not destroying it themselves.) I find it hard to believe they have any credibility after that. While saying good or bad comes down to definitions, I certainly won't give them any credit.
Since when are cops sworn to uphold the Constitution? They aren't, and that's one of the biggest problems with them. They're an unaccountable gang of thugs. Even the Constabulary in the UK is held to a higher standard.

[DamianTV]

Hmm, become a Cop and get paid $100k a year (depending on area), or work at McDonalds where your employer recommends you dont eat some of the products they serve, teach you how to apply for Food Stamps and Financial Aid, have no Health Insurance because you work Part Time on an Unlivable Minimum Wage. The choice is pretty clear.

[aGameOfThrones]

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/being-bad.gif

[DamianTV]

Good Cop is as oxymoronic as "The LONE Ranger and his PARTNER, Tonto"

[Occam's Banana]

Good Cop is as oxymoronic as "The LONE Ranger and his PARTNER, Tonto"

Must ... not ... quibble. Must ... not ... be ... fussy ... ah, to hell with it! I just can't help it ... :p

The masked man's sobriquet is "The Lone Ranger" - not "The Ranger Alone." Tonto wasn't a Ranger.
You can be the lone taxidermist in a town. That doesn't mean you're the only person in town.
Now, if the Lone Ranger had joined a posse of other Texas Rangers ...

[DamianTV]

Must ... not ... quibble. Must ... not ... be ... fussy ... ah, to hell with it! I just can't help it ... :p

The masked man's sobriquet is "The Lone Ranger" - not "The Ranger Alone." Tonto wasn't a Ranger.
You can be the lone taxidermist in a town. That doesn't mean you're the only person in town.
Now, if the Lone Ranger had joined a posse of other Texas Rangers ...

But its so much fun to quibble!

Our problem is that Cop Beatings dont often occur by a Lone Cop. I've seen enough Groups of Cops beating down innocent people to make me nausious.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

I'm sure Eric does not mind posting in its entirety.

For the record, of course, I agree, I've been making the same exact argument for years now.

My guess is he probably would.