Rob, I'm a man of science. I like to see confirmations of ideas. That's how you know what's true and what's not.Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife
Do you have any statistics that support your implication that you speak for all of "the 85006"? Do you and your colleagues know if the clerks receiving your tree's phone calls actually pass on more than a scribbled number of how many of you called that day? Or if are they including on their message pads terms you're using here, like "hatred", "disgust", and "despicable"?
For a membe of a minority group which frequently is maligned broadly and prejudicially, you paint with a broad brush. If you went to work each morning not being sure when you'd come home -- or if you'd come home; if you knew your day could include walking up to a vehicle with heavily-tinted windows but not knowing if the person behind that window had one of those weapons that's all the rage these days; if you had to be the man or woman whose job included dealing with someone strung out on angel dust or a baby dying in front of you after an accident, well, maybe there would be a different perspective on why officers sometimes act against type, revert to more primal behaviors, and sometimes make poor decisions.
We should expect a lot from our LEOs. We give them a lot of power. But LEOs are human. And, like waiters, gays, or people who live in the American Southwest, we should realize that some bad apples don't spoil the entire bushel.
Should LEOs be screened in hiring to the best of our abilities? Of course. Should LEOs be supported by training and simulation and information and enough time away from the job to stay alert and mentally fit? Certainly. Should officers who display poor judgment be identified and the transgressions evaluated and addressed -- and some of them be relieved of their badge and gun? Without question.
Should there be rules that require the presence and use of body cameras on LEOs? As long as there's enough he-said-she-said to warrant it, yes. Should there be a demilitarization of police forces? I think, as a citizen, it's easier to form some sort of bond with someone when there isn't an armored personnel carrier between the two individuals.
But will haranguing some desk sargeants daily over the phone change all that? Not at all. Will displaying video on social media accomplish that? Look at the cr@p that was posted on social media during the last Presidential election and ask what effects it had on voters. For every nurse in Salt Lake City, there's a pizzeria in Washington that's fronting illegal activity (not). Nothing on social media should be accepted at face value when people's lives are at stake.
Anyone in modern American society knows there are cameras everywhere. Smartphone cameras, surveillance cameras, body cameras,... There is nothing you can do in public that cannot be reported on, whether it's picking your nose in your car, shoplifting, planting evidence for a fake drug bust, or firing at someone you think is reaching for a gun.
In the quickly-developing highly-charged situations in which LEOs find themselves, no officer who thinks (s)he sees a gun in the hands of a suspect is going to spend one millisecond wondering if a camera somewhere will vindicate what (s)he does next. Similarly, I'm sure that officer in Salt Lake City didn't spend a single brain cycle thinking, "Oh, better rein it in. If I go off on this nurse, it's gonna cost the city/county/state a bundle."
Look, I'm not excusing whatever officers do. But to cast every LEO in the U.S. as an agent of fear and terror? I'm not sure what you and your colleagues are trying to accomplish. But I think it's misguided and serving more as a release of your frustration than a sponsor to actual reform. And I think it unfairly stigmatizes tens of thousands of people in a way that I think you yourself would find inaccurate and ineffective -- and repulsive.
Reply With Quote
