Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: No Such Thing As A Good Cop

  1. #1

    No Such Thing As A Good Cop

    https://freedomisobvious.blogspot.co...-good-cop.html


    Today I begin with the thesis that there is no such thing as a "good" cop. If you are one of those who are ready to jump down my throat and hurl rotten tomatoes at me, I ask that you remain calm until I have explained my position in sufficient detail. Bear in mind that most of what I will assert and attempt to defend bears the modifying amendment of "as currently constituted" and/or "as currently defined". I will do my best to make all of this clear in short order.

    To begin, I strenuously and unequivocally object to the concept of a "law enforcement officer" for the reason that "law" stands ill-defined in every source I have come to know. In the dozens of attempts at defining "law" that I have read, which range from Bouvier's and other law dictionaries, to various less-formal swags, nowhere have I encountered a definition that was in any way so much as approaching the sufficiency of rigor. This is more than a little surprising, given that the future's of countless lives have hung and continue to hang on the concept, which speaks directly to the much vaunted idea of "justice". How can one have justice if we cannot define that which is just?

    Even more surprising is the fact that one of the very best treatments on the subject can be found on wikipedia.org, a source I generally and validly view with keen suspicion and doubt. And yet, the article acknowledges my assertion that there exist no proper definitions of the term. To wit:

    There have been several attempts to produce "a universally acceptable definition of law".

    The article goes on in some detail, citing the various opinions regarding that which constitutes "law", the value there to be found in the confirmation of just how hopelessly inadequate are the extant definitions.

    The one commonality that most definitions hold is the assertion that law is a system of "rules of action". While this is correct, so far as it goes, it goes not nearly far enough to satisfy the requirements of rigor.

    I have, therefore, chosen to coin a new term, "Law", and do note the capitalization. "Law" is distinguished from "law" in that the factors arbitrariness and non-substantiation are absent. One might also call it "objective Law". Objective Law is that which can be demonstrated as objectively valid regardless of differing frames of reference and other variances between individuals or larger populations that are often used as the bases for justifying the arbitrary whims of so-called "authorities" in different places.


    "Law" must be provably valid, a requirement which today is absent to an almost universal extent, most often leaving legislatures free to enact nearly anything they please. Statutes relating to firearms and taxation are perhaps the ultimate examples of the freewheeling arbitrariness that is so typically found these days.

    Returning to the topic at hand, and assuming a properly rigor-laden definition of "Law", I would hold less objection to the idea of "Law enforcement officer", though I still see the keen and central emphasis on "enforcement" as being problematic. I am far more amenable to the old-school label of "peace officer", for in my opinion maintaining the public peace is far more in keeping with the proper role of a cop, enforcement being what we might regard as a regrettable secondary requirement to be undertaken only in the most grave of circumstances.

    The enforcement of "law", vis--vis "Law", is perhaps the central problem that soundly discredits any claim of there being "good" cops. It is precisely the fact that "law" almost always represents the arbitrary and most often capricious will of a legislative body and that the enforcement of such arbitrary fiat is the core duty of law enforcement personnel that proves beyond argument that there are no such things as "good" cops. This is not to say that there are no good men who are cops or that cops never do good things. Quite the contrary, law enforcement officers do all manner of good things.

    We often hear stories of cops who save drowning children and puppies. They apprehend dangerous criminals such as murderers and child molesters. All such acts are laudable from both practical and normative moral standpoints. But on the other hand, they also arrest people for possession of illegal drugs; growing cannabis; soliciting the services of prostitutes; gambling in non-approved facilities; bearing firearms and, until recently, engaging in homosexual congress. These are just a few of the more common statutory prohibitions of non-criminal acts that cops enforce at the points of guns and with threats of bodily destruction, financial ruin, prison, etc.

    In other words, they enforce non-Law. This, of course, ventures into a far deeper and broader philosophical discussion, which we shall save for another day. But if for now you will partially suspend your inner skeptic and accept that proper Law cannot be arbitrary in its dictates, then the argument is very nearly mine at this point.

    There are those who would cite the many good deeds of cops as some sort of justification for calling them "good". Let us briefly examine this through a simple comparative thought experiment where we set the Wayback machine to the early 1900s. As we step into 1908 Brooklyn, we find ourselves in a fine old-world Italian neighborhood where the people simply love their local hero, Vito Corleone. When Mrs. Poor Widowini was evicted for having a dog, Don Vito interceded on her behalf with the landlord, who eventually came around to his way of seeing things and not only allowed her to stay, but to also keep the dog, and reduced her rent by five- no, ten dollars per month!

    Vito Corleone also gave countless thousands of dollars to innumerable good causes and saw to it that no foreign interloper caused trouble in his neighborhood. When the little girl needed surgery her parents could not afford, there was Don Vito with his open wallet to save the day. Signore Corleone was a true hero. A good man who was faithful to his wife and loved his children with great devotion. He was a "business" man, said business occasionally requiring something of a sterner hand with some of his associates. Every once in a while, when a partner got too far out of line, well... you know how that can go, and when Roberto Gandini suddenly disappears without a trace, what can one say? The Gowanis canal can be a dangerous place.

    Do all the good deeds - those which grossly outnumber those criminal - excuse Vito Corleone's occasional acts of murder? Does the fact that he gives so much for his beloved neighborhood suggest we should turn a blind eye to the very serious crimes he commits, however infrequently?

    If the answer you give is "no", then how could you or anyone so answering be able to excuse the crimes that cops commit as they carry out their duties in enforcing statutes that are not only morally repugnant and reprehensible, but are actually and provably felonious themselves?

    This is where "as currently constituted" comes into play. "There is no such thing as a good cop, as their duties and responsibilities are currently constituted." It is impossible to credibly claim otherwise when their official acts result in the destruction of the lives of innocent people. When some sad sack, lonely man turns to a streetwalker for comfort, an act that in itself holds no element of criminality, and he is arrested, his name published in the newspaper as a "john", is fined countless thousands of dollars, and is jailed for a year with hardened criminals, there is nothing that can be said about the arresting cops to validly justify their dastardly act. The same may be said of the young punk who decides to fire up a gigantic spliff on the steps of the Manhattan courthouse and goes to prison for twenty years as a result. Stupidity does not perforce equate to feloniousness.

    Taking action against those who commit crimes mala in s is a valid role for cops.

    Enforcing statutes for acts mala prohibita, on the other hand, is not a valid role for cops. In such cases, the act of enforcement itself becomes criminal, reducing cops to the status of felons whose acts cannot by any valid standard be justified as anything other than first-degree felonies.

    Because of this dolorous circumstance of morally corrupt job requirements, cops are set between a rock and hard place. There is no doubt that many cops seek to do the good, but such intentions count for nothing when pursuant to such goals they unjustifiably bring innocents to harm with the complicity and protection of "the state".

    This, my friends, is why so many people fear, despise, and hate cops. I can think of no person I have ever known who would fault a cop for arresting a bank robber, rapist, murderer, etc. Such acts represent true and actual crimes with true and actual victims. Conversely, I know and have otherwise met large numbers of people who consider cops to be dangerous and corrupt because they enforce statutes prohibiting activities such as gambling, drug use/possession/sales, sex for money, running naked through the streets, and so on.

    Until the duties, obligations, and responsibilities of cops are amended to reflect the proper corrections to the gross and unjustifiable insufficiencies in the specifications of said duties, etc., a vast plurality of Americans are going to retain their jaded and mostly unfavorable opinions of law enforcement personnel.
    There may be those who say "so what if some of us have no respect for cops?" To those people I would point out that such disharmony serves nobody well, save those few who stand to profit from such tensions, which is to say the political class who have historically used strife and its byproducts to justify usurpations of ever greater power.

    Do cops want to be hated? Doubtless some may get off on the idea, but my money says most do not want to be the objects of broad ridicule, hatred, and ostracization. Therefore, it behooves us to redefine the role of the cop such that the vast and overwhelming majority of the people will be inclined to live in agreement with those roles and be more inclined to helpfulness, rather than fear or indifference.


    We have a huge problem, and the status quo is not helping. Many say cops need to be reeled in - I even say it myself at times when I find myself exasperated with the current reality. Perhaps the better term would be "reshaped" into roles with which one would become hard-pressed to disagree.

    I do sincerely believe that the redefinition of what it means to be a cop, when done competently and honestly, would go a long way to a significant general improvement in the quality of the lives of everyone, save the political class who would doubtlessly rail like sirens against any such changes.

    Be well, be good, and as always, please accept my best wishes.
    Last edited by osan; 07-06-2021 at 09:12 PM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.

    BRING BACK THE BANANA! OF THIS MESSAGE I AM APPROVE.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Prior to the rise of the modern nation-state and the prevalence of statutory law, there was no confusion about what law is. The king made decrees (which may or may not also have become law), but law was a part of the social order itself, it sprang up spontaneously from human interactions. The theologians held that this was the manifestation of the image of God in man and, therefore, law is ultimately given by God. Regardless of where you sit on that issue, no one believed that the king -- who is a creature, subject to God like all of us -- "makes" the law. Rather, the king is appointed by divine decree through Providence and his authority emanates from this. But no king could make a law contradicting the manifest law of God in Nature because that would be a contradiction of terms.

    If you hit me without a cause, I'll probably hit you back. Everyone understands you deserved to get smacked in return and so you have no further recourse unless you want to take the gamble of escalating the situation. That is real law. Reams of words scribbled on endless shelves of books by legislators, judges, administrators and other bureaucrats are not law... they are policy or "statutes". Like the decrees of a king, they may eventually factor into the law because ordinary people still have to grapple with the State, whatever form it takes. But no legislature, no democracy, no form of government whether monarchical or otherwise, can set aside the manifest law of God in Nature... it is a contradiction of terms.

    From a spiritual perspective, it is clear that the modern confusion over what, exactly, law is, is the result of the work of the devil. He promotes confusion in everything because that is the only way he can move his agenda forward. No one would accept the deal with the devil if they actually understood it. So there must be global confusion and few places are more heavily targeted than law because law affects so much of our daily lives. Where can you park your car, how fast can you drive, on what conditions can you enter a place of business, where can you lay down on the ground in an urban area, and so on and so forth. The more that people see these things as either completely arbitrary (e.g. "no such thing as a good cop, no laws exist") or the statutory dictates of an omnipotent legislature ("whatever Congress writes on a piece of parchment is law"), the better. Because then it is no longer clear why the manifest law of God in Nature should not be overthrown. Women becoming men, men becoming women, gendarmes engaging in running violence in the streets... all of these things "just exist", like wolves "just exist". Neither good nor bad, just existing. So when you are sent to the Gulag and you are beaten and tortured there, you can comfort yourself with this realization: "It has no meaning. There is no law for it or against it. It just exists. My torturer torments me, and I am tormented. And there is no significance to it, either way. It just exists."

    Welcome to the global exultation of nihilism...
    Last edited by ClaytonB; 05-14-2021 at 10:50 AM.

  4. #3
    For the Rick and Morty fans out there, this reminds me a lot of the recent episode "Promortyus" wherein alien face huggers (and holy cow it just occurred to me this is also a satire on the masks) take over humanoid hosts, and form a society that is bent on spreading its values throughout the cosmos with the catchphrases "The future is Glorzo! Glory to Glorzo! Glorzo is peace! Soon all will be Glorzo!"
    And at no point is the idea of Glorzo even attempted to be explained. But the genius is, you don't think about that throughout the episode... it's just the thing that society is doing, and you, the viewer, just accept it as part of the plot. And the face-hugger aliens aren't cultists either: they're clearly individuals who have just bought in to the totally undefined idea.

    I think for the average sleeping idiot, the argument in the OP would fall flat - it basically reduces to "I personally don't have a problem with prostitution and that's why cops aren't good". I mean I know that's not what it says, but people who think cops serve a valuable function in society are guaranteed to have so little gas pressure that they couldn't boil a cup of water if all four burners were on, and therefore would definitely see it that way.

    Personally I'd prefer to stick with the original point - you don't know what law is, I don't know what law is, the cops don't, the lawyers don't, the politicians don't, so what the $#@! business does anyone have 'enforcing' it? Seems like step one should be defining it.

    Of course step 2 is realizing how monumental that task is, and step 3 is recognizing there have been historical legal systems that primarily concern themselves with answering that question and continually revising the answer.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    Of course step 2 is realizing how monumental that task is, and step 3 is recognizing there have been historical legal systems that primarily concern themselves with answering that question and continually revising the answer.
    Yep:


  6. #5
    I believe that there are laws that are eternal. They are not man's laws.

    I don't like the idea of cops because I don't like order followers. I am not gong to harass them I just avoid doing business with them. I can remain law abiding without being policed. I believe that people who commit horrible crimes such as serial killers, rapist, kidnappers, all need to be hunted down and brought to swift justice. I think all drugs ought to be legal, clean cheap and, easy to obtain. I don't believe in regulating what we can put into our on bodies for our own purposes. As for prostitution I don't feel that they should be in prison either but I do think it is wrong to sell your body for what it does to a person spiritually on both sides of the transaction. We need to teach our children that they must remain chaste and not misuse their sexuality because it is the life force in the body.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Working Poor View Post
    I believe that there are laws that are eternal. They are not man's laws.

    I don't like the idea of cops because I don't like order followers.
    Based on my observations of human behavior, there are roughly two types of people -- people who know what they should/shouldn't do without being told... and those who need to be told what to do (and not do), or else they become anxious, paranoid and dysfunctional. Again, based on my observations only, I believe this latter group comprises the vast bulk of the human population. This is why democracies devolve into rule-based societies, because the order-followers will always demand that everything be spelled out in black-and-white with penalties and rewards for each and every behavior. Call it "Old Testament" versus "New Testament", if you like...

    I am not gong to harass them I just avoid doing business with them. I can remain law abiding without being policed. I believe that people who commit horrible crimes such as serial killers, rapist, kidnappers, all need to be hunted down and brought to swift justice.
    And how many of these psychopaths are really deterred by the thought of a police officer? The risks they take are almost the same in an unpoliced society as a policed one. Consider a home-invader, for example. In an armed society, what are the odds they are shot by the police versus shot by the homeowner? They are much more likely to be shot by the homeowner. So one of the most common reasons given for why we "need" public police -- deterrence -- is not only false, its a reversal of the actual situation.

  8. #7
    There are actually lots of good cops , if you know where to look .
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  9. #8
    I think it is fair to say there are a lot of cops that are much better than a lot of others but in the end they are all just armed tax collectors for the city , county , state or fed govt so ya Osan is right. I can think of one good congressman , one good Pastor but no good cops.
    Do something Danke



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    ...it's just the thing that society is doing, and you, the viewer, just accept it as part of the plot. And the face-hugger aliens aren't cultists either: they're clearly individuals who have just bought in to the totally undefined idea.
    We as a species seem overly and dangerously prone to this.

    I think for the average sleeping idiot, the argument in the OP would fall flat
    I think you're probably on the money. The post, however, is not targeted to the mean man for exactly those reasons. Pearls before swine and all that.


    Personally I'd prefer to stick with the original point - you don't know what law is, I don't know what law is, the cops don't, the lawyers don't, the politicians don't, so what the $#@! business does anyone have 'enforcing' it? Seems like step one should be defining it.
    And yet, I do believe that "Law" can be defined in an objective, rigorous, and universally demonstrable way.

    Of course step 2 is realizing how monumental that task is,
    Not sure it is, though I may be mistaken.

    and step 3 is recognizing there have been historical legal systems that primarily concern themselves with answering that question and continually revising the answer.
    And that tells me that all those efforts have been undertaken by those not up to the task.

    We may agree that "Law" is a set of rules of action, whether proscriptive or prescriptive. This is a necessary component, but not sufficient.

    Law must address, proscriptively to specify that which may not be done and prescriptively to specify what must be done.

    These two necessary elements in proper combination, should rise to sufficiency - I've not done the proof of this yet, but will likely address that question some time prior to hell freezing - the crucial element in all this is having a proper definition of "crime" at hand. So far as I can readily see, all Law must address issues of criminality precisely because crime must be the sole concern of Law. In doing so, all issues of arbitrariness are quashed in the face of the objective standard, leaving only the clinical determination of whether a crime has been committed.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.

    BRING BACK THE BANANA! OF THIS MESSAGE I AM APPROVE.


  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    There are actually lots of good cops , if you know where to look .
    Your local graveyard?
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.

    BRING BACK THE BANANA! OF THIS MESSAGE I AM APPROVE.




Similar Threads

  1. Neutering my Boxer Monday - good thing or bad thing?
    By Dianne in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 09-04-2015, 09:28 AM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 06-21-2014, 04:10 PM
  3. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-17-2014, 08:39 PM
  4. Is Net Neutrality a good thing or a bad thing?
    By Working Poor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 08-22-2010, 01:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •