So, since the president is keen on offering instruction, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer: You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.In other words--Do what I say or you risk being shot. Radley Balko gives this credentialed thug the smack-down he deserves. But it must be said that it's unsatisfying. This guy is still on the streets.
I'd add something else interesting that I've noticed in all of these threads. A lot of police want the right to carry a gun, and they want to be empowered by the state to arrest and kill. But they also want to pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from that power as possible. Indeed, what this officer wants is for the people who he's supposed to be protecting to assume the risk. Amazing. Who the fuck is he serving and protecting, besides himself?
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
"But they also want to pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from that power as possible. Indeed, what this officer wants is for the people who he's supposed to be protecting to assume the risk."
Yup, I think that sounds about right. Well said.
TNC - You're way off base here. He may have "calibrated" his words differently, but what I think he's trying to say is, the police do not know who they are encountering and what kind of risk they pose, so they always need to be on guard. If someone pulls a gun or knife, my thought is, he's going down, not the other way around. The police are here to do their jobs, no worry about perceived injustice, racial profiling or worrying whether or not they are offending anyone. I also disagree that "A lot of police want the right...to arrest and kill." Making an arrest comes with the job, and a small minority of police officers may find themselves in a position to have to pull out their revolver. I'll compromise with you and say there may be some police officers out there just waiting for an excuse to pull their gun and shoot someone, but I would say the number is so small, it's not worth mentioning. You're doing a disservie to those who truly are trying to serve and protect.
Here is your interpretation of his words:
Here are his exact words:
I leave it to the rest of the room to judge the space between the two.
Read the Balko piece. This officer is basically saying that whatever Constitutional rights a citizen has are meaningless because police officers feel like they're in danger. Go along to get along or the cop might shoot you.
I don't think that the officer is saying that Constitutional rights of citizens are meaningless if an officer feels he is in danger. What I do think he is saying is that there is a time and a place to become involved in an argument over your Constitutional rights. That time is not when an officer is responding to a breaking and entering, or an armed robbery.
The important thing is, to comply with the police officer. Even if you feel your rights are being violated. If they have been, once the situation is resolved, file a complaint or a lawsuit.
Those are the times when you need you Constitutional rights. Thats like saying you have the right to free speech as long as your mouth is closed.
These are his words:
"And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own."
His hypothetical involves some sort of My Cousin Vinny scenario. But if you're stopped by a cop who thinks you're armed and dangerous, you know even less about the situation than he does. So how exactly are you supposed to know that he thinks he's in danger? A person asserts their Constitutional rights because that's their prerogative as a US citizen, and the cop has a right to shoot you for doing it? It's insane. Give the officer in the Gates case this much credit - he never got violent, there was no shooting, no tasering. But the idea that a cop can shoot a citizen for simply asserting his rights, because being a cop is a dangerous job? That's insane, and it is deeply un-American.
Craig T,
I think that's a good point. Officer Crowley could have acted even MORE stupidly. He could have gotten violent. He could have gotten rough. The reason the officers are so quick to defend Crowley has a lot to do with the blue shield. But more importantly, they all do the same thing. All the time. If they admit that Crowley made a mistake, then they are admitting to making mistakes all the time.
Encountering government officials is when your Constitutional Rights are most at risk. That's exactly the time and place to invoke them. It certainly isn't when you're ordering coffee from Starbucks.
I was completely with the officer until this part...
"And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own."
Huh? You run the risk of being riddle with bullets if you try to assert your constitutional rights? Or if you fail to do as the officer asks? This officer is basically claiming that he's so terrified that he might completely fuck up and shoot you. I agree that cops don't WANT to shoot anyone. At least, the vast, vast majority of them don't, but he's basically admitting to being so scared that he can't do his job properly.
Right, it's also worth pointing out that I didn't write that police "want to shoot" anyone. I wrote that they want the right to be empowered by the state to arrest and kill. This seems like a statement of fact. I don't know how any officer could do his job without that right.
I dunno, in my experience it really depends on where you live. Some cops very much want/need the power of arrest (and, apparently, summary execution). Other cops don't. When I went to school in a rural area the cops there would just hang out at the Sheetz and make sandwiches for you. Coming from a city, the first time I saw an on-duty cop in an apron handing me my turkey sub was surreal.
The fact is that all they had to do was sit around all day doing nothing (or going out and agitating) but there was obviously such a culture of helping people there that these guys felt they should just go around randomly helping people when they don't have any enforcing to do.
Actually, it is an officer's job to worry about perceived injustice or racial profiling or anything else that is deemed beyond their authority. They don't get to overstep and worry about the fallout later, they should be responsible for overstepping and try not to overstep in the first place because that is part of their job and if it is a part that an officer can't seem to handle then he or she should not have that job.
It is also in their own selfish best interest. If the public believes that they will be treated justly by the authorities they will offer there co-operation more redily and fully. Distrust of the law leads to 'don't snitch'.
And above all, treat the grandmothers well -- they're the ones who know what is happening in a neighborhood.
No.
Police are public *servants* who are employed to keep the *peace*, and something seriously needs to be done to stop their continual creep outside of these parameters. It is always easy to do a job if you can control your limitations - It would be really easy to find criminals if everyone was lo-jacked and we all had cameras in every room of our house (the in-house camera was actually proposed for some low-income housing in FL) - the trick and real accomplishment is to maintain order while still respecting peoples' rights. This willingness to do things the harder, correct way is part of what made this place so great.
I think everyone has noticed that their is a push in the police community to be 'bad-ass' - militarization of uniforms, high tech weapons and vehicles, etc. However, in order to justify these expenses and tactics, they need a 'bad guy' that warrants these things. Therefore, like the war on drugs, terrorism, etc - there is no incentive to actually accomplish your goals - you always want their to be a need for more power, money, etc.
I think the fact that people actually argue for giving up their dignity and rights in order to not tick off a cop should be a huge warning to everyone. Why are we paying to be held hostage by our own employees? Safety / Freedom / Franklin - read about it.
What he's saying has no bearing whatsoever on the Gates incident, since at no point did Crowley act like a cop who was "on guard". He acted like someone who was dealing with a civilian who he felt posed no physical threat to him at all.
Yes, I get that he's trying to say that "the police do not know who they are encountering and what kind of risk they pose, so they always need to be on guard." Regardless of the validity of that statement or not, that's not even the issue in the Gates situation.
Gates provided the cop with his drivers licence and his Harvard ID. So the cop actually DID know EXACTLY who he was encountering: a slightly-built elderly Harvard professor with a cane. And it was only AFTER the cop learned who he had encountered that he persisted in asking Gates to step outside, which appears to be when Gates lost it.
So there really isn't a defense to the argument this guy is presenting.
I've made this point here before, but it's common sense to act polite and non-threatening to cops when you interact with them. That's been my M.O. in the past, and it's worked well for me in cases where, if the cop wanted to be a ball-buster, he could have given me a ticket or worse, but -- probably since he appreciated my polite, helpful, and non-threatening attitude and actions -- he let me off with a friendly warning. Whether a cop should be allowed to arrest you for being obnoxious and rude is a different question, but since being an obnoxious and rude generally leads to poor outcomes in life, why be that?
Re this:
"A lot of police want the right to carry a gun, and they want to be empowered by the state to arrest and kill. But they also want to pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from that power as possible."
A lot of police also don't want you and me to have a legal right to carry or have certain weapons. I've always found it curious that ACLU types tend to side with cops on this (or, at least they don't seem to be as interested in protecting the 2nd Amendment as they are in protecting the 1st).
Yeah, how does that saying go about bees and honey and vinegar? I agree that it will probably make your day go much, much smoother if kiss a cop's ass. But sometimes, you have to admit, that's not the point.
Being polite and non-threatening and kissing ass aren't quite the same thing. What I mean is this: cops know that whenever they pull over a car there is some chance the person in it will try to kill them, or will do something stupid (intentionally or not) that will force the cop to do things he doesn't want to do. What I'm talking about is making it crystal clear up front that you aren't one of those people. I do that, for example, by letting the cop know ahead of time that my registration is in the glove compartment and saying, "I'm going to reach for it, OK?". Lowers the temperature a lot versus, say, angrily reaching for it while muttering something under your breath about getting pulled over.
The fundamental decisions or movements in society that protect our rights have rarely come from people being polite to cops. Miranda was a real dirtbag; nobody remembers that now. Before Rodney King, how many Americans didn't think the cops would ever just start wailing on a guy on the ground? Until a few weeks ago, it didn't occur to me that a woman in her 70s would get tasered by a state trooper who's two feet taller than her.
I remember a cop coming to my school in 1st grade. He said a lot of people don't like the cops because they've seen cops roughly subduing a suspect, but they don't take into account what the suspect did beforehand. I don't remember buying it when I was 6, and I don't buy it now.
I certainly agree with that, that being polite to a police officer is generally in everyone's best interest. If that was this guy's point, fine, it's good advice for everyone. But that really isn't the point being made here. This guy fairly explicitly says that if you refuse a request from a cop, any request, you should understand that he may very well shoot you.
Mark,
I wonder if there is a connection between the Rodney King case and the increased use of Tasers. The use of Tasers is probably much more carefully stipulated by regulations than the use of a night stick, and, in most cases, the Taser probably causes fewer permanent injuries, so cops probably feel safer using it.
I remember seeing a video of a cop (who happened to be white) Tasering a female motorist (who happened to be black) when she continually refused his commands to get out of the car. I think this was in Florida. A local paper or other news organization showed the video to a cop (who happened to be black) who was an expert on the use of force, and he explained why the Taser was appropriate in that case. What it came down to, essentially, was that it was the tool that would likely result in the least risk to the cop and the least injury to the woman. E.g., if the cop reached in the car and tried to wrestle the woman out of it, she might have started driving off, putting the officer at risk.
Another cause of the increased "by the book" mentality among cops might be the increasingly litigious nature of our society. Remember the case when a school called the cops on an elementary school kid acting out? Everyone from teacher to the cop was probably acting "by the book", however absurd that ended up looking, but what were the alternatives? If the teacher just smacked the kid's ass and told him to behave himself, she probably would have lost her job, faced criminal and civil charges, etc.
But by the same token, since Tasers are less deadly, officers will necessarily be less cautious about using them than guns or clubs. And since tasers are less-lethal but still potentially deadly, you end up with a lot of taser use and a lot more injuries and deaths yet less scrutiny. (I just read about this phenomenon somewhere recently and can't remember where!)
Like they say about helmets in hockey, once the players have helmets on, players feel invincible and hit other players more carelessly, erasing the safety gains made by introducing helmets in the first place.
Oh, Plinko...How wrong you are about my beloved sport of hockey! Helmets vastly reduced injuries - including concussions, not just eye, mouth and face injuries.
Think of it more like skiing and helmets: people are going to take the risks no matter what, so they may as well be protected.
Peter Moskos (the sociologist slash baltimore cop) has a bit to say about tasers, and here is some of it:
http://www.copinthehood.com/search/label/tasers
Suffice it so say, he is not a fan.
This was the link from Moskos I really wanted to post:
http://www.copinthehood.com/2008/04/taser-is-for-torture.html
Dave,
Not trying to be an ass (I swear) but do you believe a citizen has the right to shoot a cop if the cop violates their rights? Isn't that a big part of what the 2nd amendment is about, protection from government?
Some have argued that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide a defense against centralized government*. I think it's something of a stretch to go from that to what you are saying though.
*I understand that argument in principal, and I am for the right to keep & bear arms, but if that was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment I'd argue it's failed pretty spectacularly. I think the founders (with the possible exception of Alexander Hamilton) would be shocked if they saw the size and reach of the federal government today. That said, the government got this reach through democratic means -- people voted for greater economic security, and when you want more security there's generally a trade off with freedom or autonomy.
We have different organizations that concentrate on protecting different rights. Criticising the ACLU for failing to act on gun ownership issues is like criticising the Leag of American Wheelmen (a bicycle organization) for failing to advocate for pilolts. It is not their job that is the job of the AOPA, and we have the NRA for advocating for gun owners.
I disagree with your analogy. Here is how the ACLU describes its mission, from its website:
That sounds broadly-encompassing enough that it's reasonable to find it curious, as I do, that the ACLU is uninterested in a right that the folks who wrote the Bill of Rights considered important enough to make the second one on their list.
They are a civil society organization however broadly they wrote that mission statement. Finding that curious just marks you as a person who like me on ocasion is overly literal in his interpretations.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The first half of the sentence is rarely quoted nowadays. The individual right to bear arms is not self-evident from the original context. Before the Reagan counter-revolution, the Second Amendment was generally interpreted as a protection for the states against encroachment by the federal government.
The first half of the sentence is rarely quoted nowadays."
It's quoted all the time. It's worth remembering though, that when the amendment was written, militias consisted of men who kept their weapons at home (similar to how, for example, Swiss and Israeli army reservists do today, and unlike the case with U.S. military reservists).
"Before the Reagan counter-revolution, the Second Amendment was generally interpreted as a protection for the states against encroachment by the federal government."
This is an interesting argument to make, considering that the state militias (the National Guard) had been effectively under Federal authority since 1916. This goes to my asterisked point above in response to Dan, about how as a means of protection against a centralized federal government, the amendment has largely failed.
The Swiss reservists who keep their army-issued weapon (which has been modified to remove the automatic capability) are also issued a specified amount of ammunition in a sealed container, which is inspected regularly. I heard this from a Swiss immigrant, and Wikipedia concurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
Until 2008, our courts relied on U.S. v Miller, a 1939 US Supreme Court case, in declining to recognize a private right to bear arms. Last year in a 5-4 ruling, Justice Kennedy joined Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito in re-interpreting U.S. vs. Miller.
I used to wory about the right to keep and bear arms. I thought it was the the garontee of our other rights. Then I saw the fall of the Soviet Union, the Berlin wall, and the other changes in eastern Europe in the late 1980's. Having small arms will not protect the citizenry from the government's modern military. The only thing that will protect them is the fact that the military is comprised of citizens and may refuse to fire on them if ordered to do so.
The freedoms of assembly, press, and speach upon which our civil institutions are much more important to our continued freedom. That and teaching loyalty to the ideals the nation was founded upon (rather than teaching loyalty to authority or the flag) is what will keep us free if we are to remain so. Raising a generation that is overly compliant to authority and comfortable with excessive state power, like unchecked power to arrest and torture, is all it takes for the republic to fall. America may go on for centuries just as Rome did after its republic fell but it will no longer be the republic that I joined our army to defend even if it still flys the Stars and Stripes.
I think it makes sense generally to act politely and non-threateningly to people when you interact with them, whether they are cops or not.
If we are getting back to Gates here, my problem is with him being arrested for being rude and obnoxious, when he clearly posed no threat. Being rude and obnoxious while reaching for your glove box... I can see a cop tensing up there, given the possibilities. That is NOT what was going on in Gates's house.
As for the quote above, it's just sick. The guy is basically saying "fuck my oath, the only thing that matters is me beating you to the draw." All he has to do is inform you of why you're being stopped. But he's saying he doesn't have to. You just have to submit to his police power.
As for the ACLU, they probably just interpret the law as many, many people do: it's not an individual right to bear arms. If that's the case, why would they take up on individual's case, if that individual is not actually a member of a well-regulated militia?
However, I don't think the ACLU subscribes to constructionist interpretations of the Constitution, and given the anachronistic nature of "well-regulated militia," one could argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't serve much purpose in our contemporary life. Obviously, you would disagree with me, but I'm sure the ACLU has a thought-out position on this.
"I've made this point here before, but it's common sense to act polite and non-threatening to cops when you interact with them."
Of course, but that's not what the scenario presented in the column is about. You can politely and non-threateningly invoke your constitutional rights.
My mom told me an interesting story about being on a Greyhound in Buffalo around 1973. The cops came onto the bus after everyone had boarded and started asking for everyone's papers. An old woman said "I'm an American - I don't have to show you anything." And the cops said nothing and just kept on walking...
If it's that tough, quit. Otherwise do your job.
Cops may be entitled to respect, but they're certainly obligated to show some.
TNC - I think you have again hit nail-on-head with "pawn off much responsibility." Going back to something you wrote last week, not everyone is cut out to be a cop. There's no shame in that. But if one can not handle the responsibility that comes with carrying a gun and badge while protecting and serving, they should find or be forced into another line of work.
Cops that believe it's all about them all the time remind me of some NBA refs. One can keep control of a situation and enforce the rules while still being professonal and being the bigger man. It's what you're trained and paid to do.
I will not stop being polite to the police but these incidents are going to make me less co-operative if I am not breaking the law. I am going to make them jump through all the hoops if they want to search me or my property, and they will have to explain themselves if they want my co-operation.
"But they also want to pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from that power as possible."
Dead on. Of course they want to pawn off as much of the responsibility that comes along with power as possible - they're human beings. Pawning off responsibility while maximizing power is something humans will almost always try to do.
I'm assuming Dunphy is doing the walk-back, claiming that he's telling us what is rather than himself issuing a threat. But it doesn't matter. The tone and attitude are clear. This is the policing he endorses. The thing that - were I more naive - would be shocking is that he's merrily pissing on the notion of even the most basic constitutional rights at the flagship conservative journal. It's not like we didn't know, but certainly it's one more reminder of what a cesspool so much of contemporary conservatism happens to be.
Good point. When did conservatives start endorsing unlawful searches and seizures?
Oh right. You have nothing to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong.
Were this jackbooted bozo a firefighter, he'd be saying: "tough luck you got trapped in a burning building."
There's a reason we call firefighters 'firefighters' and policemen 'cops.'
No question: neither firefighters nor police can be asked to commit suicide in the line of duty. But we are asking both to take risks, and, one hopes, honoring their sacrifices (and providing for their kine) when the risks go bad.
Further, there's a reason to hold police to a higher standard -- it's much easier for a police force to become uniform parasites on the larger society -- the fire department has only a few core competences compatible with organized crime, the police departments far more.
"who the fuck is he serving and protecting, besides himself?"
undercover cop who shot off-duty cop chasing perp.
undercover cop who shot home-owner for kicking him off the stoop
beat cop who unlawfully enters a home and arrests the owner for telling him to get out of the house.
this question, or at least a more formal version, should be repeated throughout debriefings of the officers involved in scenarios like the ones we've seen this summer.
we pay these people to protect and serve us. recognizing the breadth of the task we have commanded, we cede certain powers- not freedoms- that most of us have great misgivings allowing. to me, the responsibility we burden these men and women with requires access to these extraordinary powers, otherwise it is a 'mandate without funding'. however, access to these powers in itself comes with a whole new set of responsibilities that our current law enforcement structure seems to have trouble accepting, if not acknowledging.
'I feared for my life' is a powerful reason for action that resonates at that primal street level we all seem to possess, but should it excuse our law enforcement professionals from ignoring their first objective of protecting and serving the communities who pay their bills?
a little further down the road- and I am def a little uneasy thinking about it in such mercenary terms- aren't we paying these guys to take bullets for us?
"I am def a little uneasy thinking about it in such mercenary terms- aren't we paying these guys to take bullets for us?"
One certainly hopes that's the standard for the Secret Service.
As to line cops, there's another problem: a cop who 'feared for his life' (and acted on that fear) when the situation gets really hot is very likely a cop who will endanger his colleagues when their life is on the line.
TNC, you wrote:
But they also want to pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from that power as possible. Indeed, what this officer wants is for the people who he's supposed to be protecting to assume the risk.
I agree with your inference drawn from the statement of "Jack Dunphy", the nom d'cyber of an alleged cop on the LAPD. However, all this anonymity on the web creates space for anyone who wants to "pawn off as much responsibility, or risk, that comes from"... our words. This level of anonymity allows, if not encourages, misinformation and disinformation that can twist any idea or opinion into inflammatory and even dangerous, exchanges.
Who knows if an LAPD police officer "Jack Dunphy" even exists?
None of us will ever know if this guy is even a cop, yet you have jumped into the fire by writing, "This guy is still on the streets." For all we know, the guy who wrote the piece could be a 19 year jerk sitting in a wi-fi coffee joint getting his rocks off.
That's why I use my real name. It makes me responsible for my words. I was a moderator of a listserv years ago, and eventually someone made a death threat against another poster. At that point, we put in a requirement that posters use their last names, and make both their full names and email address known to the moderator. Words written anonymously sitting behind a computer create a fertile environment for the "Jack Dunphys" of the world.
It is an issue of responsibility, honesty, and just a little courage to associate one's self with one's words and opinions.
There are legitimate reasons people seek anonymity on the net. If Dunphy is a cop many of the things he has written about might piss off his bosses in the LAPD or some politicians.
I choose a "nom de guerre" because there are various local politicians in Chicago, of the aldermanic variety, who really view me as a pain in the ass. They might try to retaliate against me and then I'd have to go all Guinness on their asses.
But how many people in Chicago are there who have a green jolly roger on their car? Honestly you can't be too hard to find being Irish and a Pirate and all. I mean if you were just Irish or Just a pirate you'd be really hard to find. An Irish Pirate is really easy just look for the guy with an eye-patch who swears at you in Gaelic. :)
I've been reading "Jack Dunphy" for years. I scan NRO daily. Don't read much of it since the wackos have taken over.
Jackie Boy clearly screwed up on this post.
Let's call it "copvision". He also needs to look at it from the point of the non cop being pulled over or dealing with the police. It goes back to the "walking in another person's moccasins" idea I mentioned last week.
Dunphy would be the first to argue about his rights to due process etc if he were arrested or particularly his first amendment rights as to the posts he writes.
Now his idea about being "respectful" to the po po has merit. As does being respectful to everyone who you run across until they give you a good reason not to be.
Dunphy is a victim of copvision. He may be cured or find relief when he retires and starts thinking like a civilian again. He is not alone in that. Many cops suffer from that malady. Not all. Some can see beyond the "us versus them" dynamic.
A few days ago, my son was pulled over -- because his inspection was going to expire in two days, or so the officer told him.
For half an hour, he was put through field sobriety tests, lectured, and scolded.
But he was sober.
He wasn't speeding.
His inspection sticker hadn't inspired.
He hadn't committed a moving violation.
He had insurance on his car.
He had not broken any law.
But he did have a car full of young men.
So for a half hour, the cop taunted them instead of really policing; putting the fear of authority in to them?
That's what's wrong. Cops, too often, act like bullies, instead of peace officers.
Yup. If a cop sees a full back seat of teenagers at night, there is a decent chance you're getting pulled over. I assume your son is in the 16-20 year old range?
It has long been known that if men ride four deep in a car you are begging to be pulled over. I won't do it and I am a 45 year-old white guy.
So now we all know that there are scary cops out there, and I think that they just released the LA police from federal oversight, so what should be done about it? If we get rid of every cop who has these kinds of attitudes who will replace them? They need to go but this isn't as simple as getting them all psych tested. Anyone here work on applied public policy matters?
Yes. Still do; now criminal justice, in the nineties, welfare reform.
In the nineties, I interviewed the head of a welfare department in a large California county as she was trying to transition the caseworkers into case managers / employment specialists. She said her biggest challenge was that she could not get the workers to stop treating the clients like s***.
She tried everything -- sensitivity training, love yourself, love the clients stuff and nothing worked. After what she had hoped was a particularly positive motivational seminar, she monitored the 800 number set up for client complaints. The workers immediately resumed calling the clients lazy whores.
She was stuck with this lot. The union defended the abusive workers to the nth degree and she felt none could be fired without years of hearings and appeals.
The workers were largely women who "had pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps" and thought of the welfare payments as coming out of their own purses. They were just one paycheck from welfare themselves but separated and elevated themselves from the moms.
Cops and correctional officers, too, have their own culture and their own sense of where they fit in the larger pecking order; and they are very clear that we (or prisoners, in the latter case) are all beneath them. They, too, have unions that back them up. Culture changes are damn hard to change, let alone enforce.
Ultimately, its all about leadership. The welfare administrators and police chiefs who succeed in effecting necessary culture changes see the problems as ultimately about zero tolerance and employee discipline and are willing to fight as hard and as long as it takes to nail or fire abusive employees.
ok but leaders can only work with what they have, or can get. And many cities are having trouble recruiting cops period, let alone well-grounded cops. So where are we going to get people who will take on such hard, often miserable work? Can't see a police-corps like they have for teachers working. The culture of policing seems linked to many aspects of the job. I said here once before that the military's shift to counter-insurgency style tactics seems to offer some hope, but police don't work daily in big groups, so supervision is minimal. Also there is TNC's earlier point that a large part of the voting block seems to embrace boots on the ground style policing of other people, so how to change the politics so that changing policing isn't seen as being soft on crime?
PS: After the head of corrections in Florida was indicted, a new guy with a military background came in to clean house. He fired and reassigned a ton of officers and installed a new inspector general. He thought he was making progress in effecting culture change until he learned that officers in one of his prisons were being made to lick toilets.
More were fired. http://tiny.cc/PCJ3V
Terribly typo! The officers were making prisoners lick the toilets.
The problem with cops is that they are human and have feelings and attitude and ego. They also have a gun and the right to shoot you in certain circumstances. The circumstance in this scenario is that the cop thinks you are a felon with a weapon, you think the cop is a jerk for pulling you over. You also have feelings and attitude and ego. If you react with your attitude and the cop reacts with his you may wind up dead despite your constitutional rights. If the cop is reprimanded later that does you little good. We do have the right to be confrontational with cops and I for one am glad that we do. There are times when we deem it necessary to stand up for our rights and we should. But, those times usually involve consequences and we should be ready to suffer them. Each of us gets to decide when is the appropriate time to stand up and what are we willing to pay for it.
My attitude doesn't have a gun.
If I get killed for my attitude, the cop should be more than reprimanded.
I think that's what we're saying. No one (I think) is arguing for being rude. To ask for the reason why you are being stopped is a basic constitutional right.
We shouldn't be ready to suffer any consequences for asserting our basic rights to the people we pay to protect those rights and our physical safety.
It's not a question of "standing up." This isn't a totalitarian regime with no legal protections. We're not asking to change the system. We're asking for the guardians of the system to actually abide by it.
Reprimanded, sent to prison or executed as a murderer, it won't matter to you if you are dead.
My point was that the best of cops are humans, humans that we as a society have given guns. If you are confronted by anyone with a gun the situation is dangerous regardless of the amount of training they have or what their job discription is. I didn't say you should not ask why you were stopped. I warned about haqving an attitude toward a man with a gun.
We can 'suffer consequences' for any and all of our actions. Some of those consequences can be positive other not so. If you want to assert your rights with a gun pointed at you that is your right, but it is not always the smartest course.
You can ask all you want of our guardians, but remember they, like you, are human and therefore unpredictable.
Being a cop is a demanding job and requires a lot of skill in reading a potentially dangerous situation. I'm not going to bet my safety on a particular cop having that skill.
I understand what you are saying, but this means that because cops are human and carry guns, our rights don't really protect us.
I recognize that having an attitude is a bad idea - I would say in any interaction it isn't advisable to start with an attitude. But simply asking why you have been stopped, without attitude, doesn't seem that provocative.
I guess I separate "having an attitude" from "asserting your rights." Your post was more about attitude, and your point is well-taken.
Very few people would disagree with this statement, but your confusing two arguments. The question isn't, "Is it a good idea to be respectful toward a cop?" It obviously is. It's "Do we want cops on the street who think as Dunphy does?" Two different questions. One can, at once, teach people how to save their skin, and, at the same time, lobby for smarter police. Those two notions aren't in conflict.
I have yet to see anyone say it's a good idea to have an attitude with a man with a gun.
I see fear radiating through the entire cop-on-the-beat statement. He might be overplaying that part (the way Cheney and pals want us to think Bin Laden is scarier than Stalin was). Maybe, but I don't think so.
I've met men who hold power without projecting that fear. They often with military backgrounds, and carry themselves with a calm that spreads to other people. I think they've gotten good at assessing dangers small and large, so they don't overreact, and they've gotten skilled at handling danger with minimum effort, so they don't react too soon. Colin Powell is the best public example I can think of, with Petraeus close behind. My kids' elementary school principal is the one I know best (and a former MP). Tentatively, I think our new local police chief is another in the set.
To stop reading stories like these, I want to figure out we can train and organize police forces so that most officers can operate with that calm. As long as fear drives the organizations, the organizations will keep producing new abusers. Even if we fire them as fast as we spot them, the bullies will keep coming unless we work out how to structure things so that fear isn't running their thinking.
It's interesting seeing you remark on the phrase "to protect and serve." Several years ago when I was in college my fraternity was having a party and a group of about twenty townies started a brawl with some random kids on the street that then spilled into our front lawn.
Not wanting to be liable if something really bad happened on our property and not wanting to jump in with 30-40 guys and likely escalate it, the president of the fraternity and myself called the police to come break it up. The police came and the brawlers scattered, but as soon as the cops left the kids came back and, among other things, I had a full beer can pegged in my face from about five feet away.
Someone else called the police this time and when they arrived, the president and I (who were the two "sober monitors" of the party) went to tell them what happened. Nevermind that I was assaulted, they said that if they were called a third time by anyone then they would arrest my friend and I for "disturbing the peace." They accused of us being drunk even though we were both completely sober, and asked us why we didn't just fight the townies ourselves, seeing as we "had a lot of big guys." The officer said "we're not here to protect you."
I was amazed. Here I thought we were being responsible for not escalating a potentially dangerous situation and I'm being threatened by the police for involving them. I asked the officer, "isn't it your duty to protect and serve" to which he responded "not literally."
I know that this was one situation and I can't attribute it to all police, but I think that one of the major problems with "law enforcement" is that a lot of police officers don't view themselves as being charged with protecting the populace from those who would break the law, but rather being charged with enforcing The Law on the populace. There's a subtle difference but it has huge implications on the relationships between police and civilians.
If there are any police out there maybe you can tell me your feelings on this. Is the primary goal of a police officer to protect people or to lock people up?
My father was threatend by an employee he had to fire. The policeman who took his complaint asked him if he hunted. My father told the officer he did. The officer's recomendation was that my father cary his shotgun and hunting gear in the car so he could defend himself. Cops giving crapy advice is par for the course. Yours recomended that you start a brawl. Dad's recomended starting a gunfight in the streets of a major city. Both of them would have arrested you if you took their advice and denied giving it under oath at your trial.
The night I went to see TNC at Eso Wan Books in L.A., in January, I got stopped afterwards on my way to a taco spot on Figueroa. My registration was two weeks late - it's customary for the cops to wait at least two months before ticketing - because I'd sent the reg. in through the mail instead of paying online. Anyway, the cops went all out with the flood lights, siren. Anyway, it was quite apparent that the cop was trying to bait me into mouthing off so he could look cool for his female trainee. But, I wouldn't go for it. I've actually had a lot of good experiences with the cops, and pride myself on my "good cop karma."
At one point, as he was railing on and on about me not having a current insurance card, which I didn't even know was still applicable given that here in California not having insurance automatically comes up when a lisence plate is run through the computer. And, not having insurance will get your registration revoked in less than thirty days. So, I asked him, "doesn't it say that I have insurance in the computer?" He kind of just gave me a nasty look, and continued grilling me. But, again I wouldn't go for it. It wasn't about whether or not I had insurance, it was about procedure.
When I went to touch up my lipstick, cause the lights were blaring in my face (might as well look good), he seriously looked like he was going to draw his gun on me. His trainee just kind of looked embarassed for him.
As soon as he returned my info and I pulled off, he turned his siren on again. At this point, I just threw my hands up, cause I know that I had made him look like a fool by not reacting. He sheepishly walked to the car and returned one of the documents he still had.
Anyway, he was Mexican and I'm black. But I sure as hell won't be buying any tacos in L.A. anytime soon or going to see any authors at Eso Wan.
I just wanted to say one thing on this. The officer quoted above closed his piece with the following:
the html code didn't translate as I wanted it to.
I may be wrong, but I think there is an underlying assumption on the part of the officer that in this hypothetical situation the person making the arrest is white and the person being arrested is of color. I don't think I'm wrong, but I might be.
Those are my thoughts not the officer who wrote the article.
Well, in fairness, he's talking about larger points, but I think he's referring to the Gates situation directly.
Also in that paragraph you quote, he's implying that if you run your mouth, and tell him your rights, you won't get an apology or an explantion. I'm likely to get neither. Well, who gives a rat's ass? Just don't shoot me, arrest me, or bust my balls too hard, and we'll be cool. An apology and an explanation can go a long way, but just do your job in a professional manner to begin with, and you're unlikely to have someone run their mouth at you to begin with.
I don't know. There's a whole different dynamic with the police where I grew up. I like to steer clear over debates concerning the job of police officers and how they should or should not do them, because in my experience it's best to just avoid the cops.
Where I grew up, not where I live now, the police situation was complicated. BIA has its own police force, the state has the highway patrol, and the county has it's cops. I'm not qualified to speak on the matter, but police officers are best avoided unless absolutely necessary.
However, in reply to your above point usually someone doesn't menition "rights and history of oppression" unless they are talking to an audience that the believe is composed of minorites.
Christopher Hitchens nails it here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2223673/