Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Morality of Modern Police

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Is morality a factor when violating individual rights is part of your job description? Obviously police are a fundamental function of government. However, being an officer today requires one to be willing to violate an individual's rights in countless ways. Regularly officers are required to enforce drug and alcohol laws, firearm laws, and freedom of assembly laws. To cite a few more major things, recent and old, here is a nice site <http://www.peoplespark.org/69gall4.html -bottom of page links to more photos> about the People's Park riot and here is a YouTube site <http://www.youtube.com/user/CheckpointUSA> about some Homeland Security stuff.

If you're a police officer you must accept orders into a situation like the People's Park riot. No law enforcement officials were ever punished for the acts there that had police using 00 buckshot against unarmed and innocent civilians that resulted in one death and multiple injured. Daily unlawful search and seizure is perpetrated by border patrol police miles inside of our borders-police that are just doing their job.

Considering these indisputable facts about what police are required to do as part of their job, how can we not condemn them in the most harsh way? Police probably violate more rights in the US than criminals. I'm just wondering if others feel as strongly against them as I do. I'm not suggesting that we don't need police, but I'm saying that surely these people, who voluntarily and knowingly enter into a contract that will have them personally violating the rights of countless individuals to the point of murder, are among the worst human beings in our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is morality a factor when violating individual rights is part of your job description?
Yes. It may be a factor that you ignore; it may be a factor that guides your choices.
However, being an officer today requires one to be willing to violate an individual's rights in countless ways.
Probably: and that sucks. I believe thought that one can to some extent avoid violating the rights of individuals in possession of drugs.
Regularly officers are required to enforce drug and alcohol laws, firearm laws, and freedom of assembly laws.
Well, there aren't any "freedom of assembly laws". By "alcohol laws", are you referring to "minor in possession" or drunk driving? The latter is a reasonable law that corresponds to enforcing a contractual condition, under private ownership of streets.
If you're a police officer you must accept orders into a situation like the People's Park riot.
There is no "right to riot", and hooligans with no respect for property do need to he reined in. So there's no valid criticism of the police to be found there.
Considering these indisputable facts about what police are required to do as part of their job, how can we not condemn them in the most harsh way?
Your anger is misplaced. The condemnation should be directed at the twerps who create the improper laws: the laws that restrict immigration and restrict free trade. The function of the police is to enforce the law, not to create the law. Your understanding of actual fact and history is also pretty atrocious.

What I find most is most offensive is the fact that you sit there silently, implicitly sanctioning the pillaging of America's wealth at the instigation of leftist welfare statists. That is where the real massive rights violations are to be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. It may be a factor that you ignore; it may be a factor that guides your choices.Probably: and that sucks. I believe thought that one can to some extent avoid violating the rights of individuals in possession of drugs.Well, there aren't any "freedom of assembly laws". By "alcohol laws", are you referring to "minor in possession" or drunk driving? The latter is a reasonable law that corresponds to enforcing a contractual condition, under private ownership of streets.There is no "right to riot", and hooligans with no respect for property do need to he reined in. So there's no valid criticism of the police to be found there.Your anger is misplaced. The condemnation should be directed at the twerps who create the improper laws: the laws that restrict immigration and restrict free trade. The function of the police is to enforce the law, not to create the law. Your understanding of actual fact and history is also pretty atrocious.

What I find most is most offensive is the fact that you sit there silently, implicitly sanctioning the pillaging of America's wealth at the instigation of leftist welfare statists. That is where the real massive rights violations are to be found.

Hmm, as far as the People's Park riots go, it's my understanding that it didn't begin with any pillaging or looting, and I don't think there was much of that anyway. I believe that it's actually often cited as a police riot. As you'll see in photographic evidence, police were firing lethal shotguns at people on rooftops-people who, though probably trespassing, were unarmed. The incident was followed up by bringing in the national guard, fencing up the park, instituting curfews in the city, and there's even a photo of an army helicopter dropping teargas onto the campus. Given that they were protesting the right to do something on public land makes it sort of unclear morally (public ownership of anything being ridiculous). I'm really not sure what you meant by that last quote, but I'm guessing it's about the riot. Again, I don't think this particular riot had a bunch of looting. This wasn't like the LA riot or something, and downtown Berkeley isn't filled with a bunch of jewelry stores-they'd be pillaging t-shirt stores and cheap restaurants.

As far as the alcohol laws go, I was referring to minor in possession laws, distribution laws, and production laws. Of course drinking and driving should be subject to private street rules.

I realize that anger should be directed at lawmakers, but police are still voluntarily violating rights. Nobody forces someone to become an officer. I'd really like to see this in a different light, so maybe some useful feedback would be nice.

edit: oh, and please don't insult my understanding of fact and history. We don't know each other, but you're probably neither a historian on this subject nor someone who dwarfs me intellectually. Let's try and converse like equals.

Edited by Halsey17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that we don't need police, but I'm saying that surely these people, who voluntarily and knowingly enter into a contract that will have them personally violating the rights of countless individuals to the point of murder, are among the worst human beings in our country.

This is a very irrational thing to say. Either you want to live with a police force or you don't. If you want to live without a police force, go live in a jungle. If you don't want to live without a police force, do not condemn those who make a police force possible. Instead, as David Odden said, you should be directing your anger at lawmakers. You are trying to have your cake (have a police force) and eat it too (condemn the police, without whom there would be no police force).

Basically, I think you are falling into the trap of rationalism:

Violating individual rights is bad.

Therefore, anyone who participates in such violation is bad.

The police do participate.

Therefore the police are bad.

This argument drops the entire context of the situation. It ignores the fact that the police are absolutely necessary for the well-being of rational citizens. It ignores the fact that police who are forced to violate rights by the state are victims of force themselves. Finally, it ignores the fact that in the United States, the police rarely violate rights.

In fact, the argument would only be valid in a totalitarian dictatorship, where the existence of the police force became detrimental to the ability of citizens to act rationally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very irrational thing to say. Either you want to live with a police force or you don't. If you want to live without a police force, go live in a jungle. If you don't want to live without a police force, do not condemn those who make a police force possible. Instead, as David Odden said, you should be directing your anger at lawmakers. You are trying to have your cake (have a police force) and eat it too (condemn the police, without whom there would be no police force).

Basically, I think you are falling into the trap of rationalism:

Violating individual rights is bad.

Therefore, anyone who participates in such violation is bad.

The police do participate.

Therefore the police are bad.

This argument drops the entire context of the situation. It ignores the fact that the police are absolutely necessary for the well-being of rational citizens. It ignores the fact that police who are forced to violate rights by the state are victims of force themselves. Finally, it ignores the fact that in the United States, the police rarely violate rights.

In fact, the argument would only be valid in a totalitarian dictatorship, where the existence of the police force became detrimental to the ability of citizens to act rationally.

For the record I'm not saying we shouldn't have a police force or saying police force is inherently bad. This thread is purely about the current police force in the US and their actions. Also, the police aren't forced to violate rights by the state because they can quit their job at any time. I completely agree that police are absolutely necessary for a society, but in an ideal Objectivist society they wouldn't violate rights because punishing legitimate crimes isn't actually a violation of rights. I also realize that we aren't in an ideal Objectivist society nor are we even close, but police are still absolutely necessary for our current society.

What I'm wondering is how it's possible not to condemn individual officers who routinely violate rights in ways that I outlined in my first post. It's not rare at all for someone to be arrested for guns or drugs. These are some of the most common "crimes". Consider further larger events like the People's Park police riots, Ruby Ridge, or the Waco Seige. The individual police officers who gassed and shot at the Branch Davidians for merely possessing weapons and defending their property could have refused and quit their jobs, but they didn't. Do you think any officers in any of those situations did simply refuse to carry out orders? Being as refusing to carry out orders is refusing to do their job, I doubt such refusals are common or anything more than extremely rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not very familiar with the examples you mentioned, but I think a good principle would be that a police officer should refuse to carry out any major rights violations (which will be rare in any case). On the other hand, you can't ask a police officer (presumably a rational man) to lose his job in order to avoid violating the rights of a (presumably irrational and self-destructive) heroine addict. A rational police officer would not crusade against addicts or advocate for stricter drug laws, but he would arrest an addict if he could not avoid doing so.

I am deriving this rule from the fact that the pursuit of many rational careers these days requires involvement in rights violations. Let's say that in the future (I don't know if this is the case now or not) all teachers are required to join unions. In this case, one could not urge teachers to give up their careers by refusing to join.

The answer to your question, then, is that it is irrational to condemn police officers who are required to carry out minor rights violations in the course of doing rational work. On the other hand, if a police officer's job required him to murder innocents, it would be time for him to quit. At that point, it would be impossible for the officer to pursue his career rationally. Although you have named a few examples, I claim that this sort of situation is extremely rare in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the police aren't forced to violate rights by the state because they can quit their job at any time.

As a 23 year veteran of a city police department and as a person who values rationality and rights, I've considered this issue many times since I began learning about Objectivism.

First and foremost you must consider that for a rational man's well being, there must exist law in a society where the rational men interact with other rational and irrational men. The rule of law is paramount EVEN when some of that law is bad. In order for that law to be enforced, you must have an enforcer. Should rational men choose not to pursue careers in this field because there are some bad laws that exist, you would either have NO police force, or you would have a police force full of irrational men (where presumably the rights violations would be significantly worse).

It's nice to consider how the ideal society would work, but since at this point that is not realistically possible, would you rather have a police force with rational men (and some irrational men), a police force with only irrational men, or no police force? Those are your choices in the context of the current situation.

I recognize SOMEONE has to be a police officer IF I want to live in a society that has law, order, and some degree of justice (is/ought). I value justice and I value living in a society of order where I can, for the most part, freely choose my path in life. Are you suggesting that I should just leave this task to men who DO NOT behave rationally? In a sense, you are correct that I am not forced to be a police officer. However, in another sense I am 'forced' to because of my recognition of the reality that IF I want to live in a society of (more or less) freedom, there must be law and a law enforcer. There are no other options available to me save savagery and/or death. It strikes me as irresponsible at this point for me to face these facts and then simply 'leave it to the other guy' or worse, expect no one to take on the task. I'm not convinced that either of these paths would bring about the desired change to a society of just and rational law. That is a change, if it comes at all, that will require a long time to achieve.

To the extent that I can still 'do my job', I try not to go out of my way to violate rights by enforcing the bad laws but I will when I must. To the extent that I can, I try to persuade others within the system to recognize the errors in our laws and how they work at cross purposes to what our real function should be.

As an aside, you are really addressing to different beasts of 'rights violations' in your argument. One is the systematic violation of rights based on bad law and the other is the violation of rights by police officers who are operating outside of the law. The officers who operate outside the law should generally be prosecuted and/or fired in most cases.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for thoughtful replies. I would contend however that major rights violations are actually far from rare, and the vast majority of "minor" ones go unreported. I grew up in a city reading about police shooting pregnant women, family dogs, and teenagers. When fully 1/5 of prisoners are in on a drug offense (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm) as their most serious crime you cannot say that individual rights violations are rare.

Having been a bit of a hellion in my early teens, I've witnessed firsthand police falsifying charges (not against me) and outright lying and using coercion. Incidents like this (http://abcnews.go.com/gma/Story?id=4309643&page=1) barely make mention in the news and would go completely unnoticed if there wasn't video evidence. You can argue that these departures from what is technically legal are rare, but I'd contend that it is only in cases where they make it to a major news outlet with absolutely irrefutable evidence that real punitive action is taken. Do you think the officer in that video had his otherwise innocent colleagues rat on him? Being an officer and not reporting fellow officers for unlawful acts makes you just as guilty, and evidence indicates that that makes most officers guilty.

We live in a nation where honest citizens are afraid of the police. Try exercising your free speech by walking up to a cop and hurling him a vile insult. Try doing that as a 20's or younger male in an area without a lot of witnesses, and you'll probably get your ass kicked and arrested. Then in custody try being uncooperative and insulting, and you'll probably get your ass kicked more. The brotherhood of police cover each other for things like alcoholism, theft, falsification of charges, and overt violence. Don't take my word for it-research the vast ocean of news articles about police corruption and brutality that apparently is largely routine and unpunished. You can argue that one can't condemn all police for these unlawful acts, but I'd say that when these actions are considered routine, even encouraged, one can. How often does the news article cite as a source a fellow officer? Never. Our current political system discourages cops from ratting on other cops, and the result is that eventually most are guilty of these unlawful violations on top of the lawful ones.

Summing up drug charges, gun charges, alcohol charges, and various others, how many individual rights violations do you think a particular officer commits over the course of 10 years? 1,000? More? Compared to something like requiring teachers to join unions, this is a huge deal. It would take a very prolific career criminal to hold a torch to the amount of violations a typical officer commits.

Lastly and most importantly, when do you draw the line? Violations of the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/ACLU_highlights_ConstitutionFree_Zone_100_miles_1022.html) are already solid law (a contradiction I know)-this is a reference to the CheckpointUSA videos too. At what point do you start blaming individual officers for not refusing to uphold wrong laws? Is it when one gropes your wife after a warrantless search? Is it when they declare martial law and institute a nationwide curfew in cities? Is it when we enter a police state and these people who are upholding order and justice are no more than trained thugs? Surely everyone agrees there is a point where enforcing corrupt law and practices isn't acceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Halsey,

You appear to be mixing two different things in your posts.

First, if we assume the police are corrupt, falsifying charges, and shooting pregnant women, this quite different from hauling people up on drug charges and gun charges. The presence of bad cops does not mean rational people ought not join the police. I think you're arguing that a rational person, joining the police, would have to turn a blind eye to corruption. I don't see that as universally true across all police-forces in the U.S., even if it is true for some.

Second, on the drug etc., RB has already answered that. Basically, the voters are the ones to blame. If you live in the U.S., you should not be selling drugs on the street. If you do, the voters have a law that could throw you in jail.

BTW: Depending on how you do it, you probably do not have a right to walk up to a cop or non-cop and hurl "vile insults" in his face.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in a city reading about police shooting pregnant women, family dogs, and teenagers.

How long ago was that?

Try exercising your free speech by walking up to a cop and hurling him a vile insult.

Try walking up to a good many strangers and do that. Do you think that part of free speech is that someone has to be subject to your verbal abuse? Do you see that sometimes what we say to people can be construed as threatening and as such one would be proper to react to such behavior in a defensive manner.

Don't take my word for it-research the vast ocean of news articles about police corruption and brutality that apparently is largely routine and unpunished.

Yes, because the news is absolutely true and accurate in all their reporting. I know first hand that the news does not frequently have access to all the facts of different issues, and they sometimes misconstrue what they do know or present it in a light that is not necessarily representative of the facts.

You can argue that one can't condemn all police for these unlawful acts, but I'd say that when these actions are considered routine, even encouraged, one can.

Which unlawful acts are routine? Which ones are encouraged? By whom? Where? You are making a very broad sweeping generalization when not all departments, cities, regions, etc. do not behave at the same ethical level.

Summing up drug charges, gun charges, alcohol charges, and various others, how many individual rights violations do you think a particular officer commits over the course of 10 years? 1,000? More? Compared to something like requiring teachers to join unions,

How does it compare to complete chaos and lawlessness?

Surely everyone agrees there is a point where enforcing corrupt law and practices isn't acceptable?

At what point is that to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are just trying to rationalize your irrational dislike for police.

I have great respect for all police, particularly the ones that worked where I used to work (Southeast DC). These guys have families and put their lives at risk daily. They deal with all the low-lives and then have to listen to some spoiled white kid from the suburbs hurl insults at him? Then every time they make a mistake people say they're racist or this and that. The incident with the shooting of the guy in NY who was pulling out his wallet. So what? If I was an officer (and I never will be), I would shoot first every single time and wouldn't wait to see if a guy was pulling a gun or not. I've had my head between pavement and a shotgun before and it wasn't fun. Preemptive action is necessary for self-preservation. Self-preservation would be my first priority (assuming I work in a bad neighborhood), and rights violations would be my second.

In addition, free speech does not include the right to walk up to anyone and say "Hey idiot, I bet your dick is small. Oh, and I'm going to kill you tomorrow asshole."

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are just trying to rationalize your irrational dislike for police.

I have great respect for all police, particularly the ones that worked where I used to work (Southeast DC). These guys have families and put their lives at risk daily. They deal with all the low-lives and then have to listen to some spoiled white kid from the suburbs hurl insults at him? Then every time they make a mistake people say they're racist or this and that. The incident with the shooting of the guy in NY who was pulling out his wallet. So what? If I was an officer (and I never will be), I would shoot first every single time and wouldn't wait to see if a guy was pulling a gun or not. I've had my head between pavement and a shotgun before and it wasn't fun. Preemptive action is necessary for self-preservation. Self-preservation would be my first priority (assuming I work in a bad neighborhood), and rights violations would be my second.

In addition, free speech does not include the right to walk up to anyone and say "Hey idiot, I bet your dick is small. Oh, and I'm going to kill you tomorrow asshole."

Well, I didn't say to hurl a vile threat but a vile insult. It really gets old correcting people instead of reading legitimate criticism. I want to read criticism (that's why I'm posting) and not seemingly intentional misunderstandings of my posts. I'm also curious about if it was a cop holding that shotgun.

Second, on the drug etc., RB has already answered that. Basically, the voters are the ones to blame. If you live in the U.S., you should not be selling drugs on the street. If you do, the voters have a law that could throw you in jail.

So if the voters vote in a law making it legal to herd all of the nations Jews into concentration camps we can't blame the police for executing these actions? Would that be because you should not be Jewish on the street?

Regarding the other statements, you are correct in that I'm arguing that in a not insignificant number of police departments joining the force does mean turning a blind eye to corruption. And if you dome some searching you'll see that police are corrupt, falsifying charges, and shooting pregnant women.

Yes, because the news is absolutely true and accurate in all their reporting. I know first hand that the news does not frequently have access to all the facts of different issues, and they sometimes misconstrue what they do know or present it in a light that is not necessarily representative of the facts.

You see I've been very careful to cite sources containing video, if not just photographic, evidence. I don't think that news companies are manufacturing false video tapes or photographs all that often. Also, when it's tons and tons of news articles reported by many news companies over spans of many years, I'm pretty sure that a significant portion of them are accurate enough.

Try walking up to a good many strangers and do that. Do you think that part of free speech is that someone has to be subject to your verbal abuse? Do you see that sometimes what we say to people can be construed as threatening and as such one would be proper to react to such behavior in a defensive manner.

Uttering a single legal, nonthreatening insult at any other person on the street and getting a reaction is entirely different than getting a reaction from a police because you get in a hell of a lot more trouble defending yourself against a police whereas he'll get in none. If Joe the Plumber swings at me for insulting him then he'll get in trouble if I don't fight back, and we'll both get in trouble if I do fight back. If a cop swings at me for insulting him then he will not get in trouble regardless unless he really messes me up badly and gets caught on camera, and if I do fight back I'm going to prison which means he definitely wont get punished.

Which unlawful acts are routine? Which ones are encouraged? By whom? Where? You are making a very broad sweeping generalization when not all departments, cities, regions, etc. do not behave at the same ethical level.

Certainly not all departments behave as I've described, but evidence of the many, many news articles spanning many, many years indicates that enough departments condone unlawful actions to make it a problem.

How does it compare to complete chaos and lawlessness?

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit" Ayn Rand

At what point is that to you?

I'm not sure exactly. Helping to figure that out is part of what I get out of this discussion. I'd probably say that it was swallowable before the war on drugs, assault weapons ban, and Patriot Act. It's not that I'm not some gun-toting druggie terrorist. It's just that those laws are a few of the biggest causes of mass violations of individual rights enforced and perpetrated by police. Hmm, I might have to throw the New Deal in there too. Without those I could probably swallow the bad laws and corrupt police a lot more happily. I'm not saying that would be an acceptable compromise-just merely much more swallow-able.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another thought, RationalBiker, what laws would it take for you to quit the force then? What if a new law went into effect requiring you to round up Americans of Arabian descent into camps similar to Asians in WWII? What if flag burning came with an automatic 5 year sentence? What if a law passed allowing warrantless searches of homes thought to contain semiautomatic weapons after they become illegal? Surely there's a point when you'd just up and quit, but have you asked yourself when that point really is that you give up your 23 year career?

edit: More importantly, when do you think your coworkers would quit? How many would stay on if America became a police state? I'll bet a frightening number of them would.

Edited by Halsey17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the voters vote in a law making it legal to herd all of the nations Jews into concentration camps we can't blame the police for executing these actions? Would that be because you should not be Jewish on the street?
You're mixing two things. As for the second question: if they were doing that, I would not advise Jews to be roaming around openly.

As for the first question: I would definitely blame anyone who encouraged the system, who was complicit in keeping it going, and who took no reasonable action against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a cop swings at me for insulting him

Right, but the question is "Why are you insulting him?" Let's forget about his reaction and talk about your action. Is it because you just have this stereotype that all policemen are evil, and so you felt like hurling a few insults at him? If so, the whole problem could be corrected if you simply stopped yelling insults at him and just gave him a smile.

To tell you the truth, your entire way of thinking is argumentative and shows that you already have your mind made up. There are not too many instances of individuals going about minding their own business when suddenly a cop jumps out of a bush, whacks the guy in the jaw, and runs away. While these types of things do happen, they are negligible in number.

I know exactly what kind of people have problems with cops. It is spoiled know-it-alls from the suburbs who got their skateboard taken by a cop because they continued to skate on private property after being asked to leave 3 times.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The incident with the shooting of the guy in NY who was pulling out his wallet. So what? If I was an officer (and I never will be), I would shoot first every single time and wouldn't wait to see if a guy was pulling a gun or not. I've had my head between pavement and a shotgun before and it wasn't fun. Preemptive action is necessary for self-preservation. Self-preservation would be my first priority (assuming I work in a bad neighborhood), and rights violations would be my second.

Then I'm really glad you aren't a cop. This pertains to a discussion some folks and I had in chat last night. I submitted that police, but more generally all agents of the state, need to be held to a HIGHER standard than private citizens, not a more lenient one. The context for this was that I said were I a police officer (I am not), I would never take a life over property destruction or the threat of property destruction as opposed to the threat of hurting someone (i.e. if someone was about to smash an empty car with a pipe and he did not comply with my order to stop I would not shoot him, whereas if he was about to smash a person laying on the ground with the pipe and he did not comply with my order to stop I would shoot). I understand it is not always that easy, but I hope that illustrates the general principle. In contrast, if a private citizen shot someone forcibly entering his home, even if that person's only intention was to steal his new HDTV and not to injure anyone, I would be more understanding, because there is no way for that private citizen to know the reason for the break-in and he should not have to wait around and figure it out.

Being a little heavy handed and busting skulls is one thing, but taking a life is something that can never, ever be undone, and I would hope that those most entrusted to protecting the right to life in this country would keep that first in their mind, always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't say to hurl a vile threat but a vile insult. It really gets old correcting people instead of reading legitimate criticism.

Since you only give a vague idea of doing something, instead of a concrete example of what you would say, I'm left legitimately to interpret that your actions can reasonably be interpreted in some way other than you intended. Give me a specific example of something you think you should be able to say to a police with impunity?

You see I've been very careful to cite sources containing video, if not just photographic, evidence.

My response remains the same. I'm not sure, but it seems that you think video or photographic evidence tells the whole story. Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not.

Certainly not all departments behave as I've described, but evidence of the many, many news articles spanning many, many years indicates that enough departments condone unlawful actions to make it a problem.

I'm not really going to argue over the proportion of the problem with you. This is too frequently a matter of perception and personal bias, but more importantly and INCOMPLETE amount of information. Do some cops do bad things? Yes. The regularity of those bad things and the extent to which you claim departments "condone" those actions... I question the thoroughness of the information you have to make such a broad claim and information that may not be accurate.

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit" Ayn Rand

I'm familiar with the quote. Now can you answer my question?

I'd probably say that it was swallowable before the war on drugs, assault weapons ban, and Patriot Act. It's not that I'm not some gun-toting druggie terrorist.

Okay, so are you ready to start up an underground, take up arms, and work to overthrow the oppressive regime? What is your plan to combat the gross injustices that you find no longer tolerable? Your words of contempt for the police are one thing, but what are you willing to actually do to accomplish the change you want to achieve?

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it is not always that easy, but I hope that illustrates the general principle.

No, it's not. I have no desire whatsoever to ever have to shoot someone. However, I have every intention of stopping a perceived lethal or serious bodily harm threat to me (or someone else) by stopping the threat with the minimum amount of force necessary to do so. Recognizing those situations can be EXTREMELY difficult and failing to act in seemingly harmless situations (like someone failing to stop pulling out a "wallet" when you order them to) can result in the officer's death. I don't think that you assume that officers should be cannon fodder, but I also don't think that you appreciate the gravity or the scope of the kind of decision-making you are questioning here. I may be wrong.

You may or may not gain some perspective in the difficulty of even well-trained personnel in making split second decisions involving life or death if you went through some training yourself or attended an Officer Survival Seminar. We get Intel all the time of "Pen Guns" "Cell Phone Guns", etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand it is not always that easy, but I hope that illustrates the general principle.

The issue is that it is not that easy, and therefore there isn't a set principle that a cop can always resort to. Every single decision a cop makes must be made contextually, and the cop should be free to make contextual decisions. There are so many factors that should be taken into account in the decision, that to bind the cop to some sort of standardized thinking procedure would be to condemn him to death.

Here are a few factors, for instance, that may go into a cops decision at any given moment: crime being committed, time of day, location, fellow officers, his previous experiences, lighting and visibility, his life, reputation of neighborhood, community he is in, clothing of suspect, appearance/race of suspect, amount of bystanders, amount of readily available backup, time it will take until backup arrives, his family at home, his career, the victim's life, the suspect's life, car the suspect is driving and whether or not it has tinted windows and chrome rims, weapons he has, weapons suspect has, etc.

Like RationalBiker said: Any time you give an order and it is not obeyed, it can turn into a life-or-death situation in the blink of an eye. Cops need to be prepared and able to assess the situation rationally and quickly, and make a decision under pressure.

Edited by adrock3215
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Growing up in the southern part of Dallas, I was socialized to have an innate distrust of the police.

lLikewise, the police in that part of the world had I guess a chip on thier shoulder, because there were illiterate teens making more in a weekend than they made in a month. But to be honest, cops are no better or worse than any other segment of society. many other professions involve violations of other folks rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that it is not that easy, and therefore there isn't a set principle that a cop can always resort to.

I agree largely with what you are saying here, but there is technically an exceedingly broad principle that governs our use of force. Simply stated, officers are empowered to use the minimal amount of force necessary to either affect the arrest or stop a threat. As you can see, that leaves a tremendous amount of latitude in what kinds of situations can be governed by that principle. This application of force is reviewed by many departments to ensure that the officers actions were in line with that principle.

So yes, each use of force incident requires an officer to respond to a largely different set of circumstances each and every time. Also, just like the judging morality in Objectivism, one must judge the officers actions within the realm of his knowledge and what he reasonably perceived of the situation. That is why in some circumstances a person can get shot for pulling out a cellular phone or a wallet. I don't think anyone wants that to happen, and I think that in most cases the officer is going to walk away with some significant emotional baggage. That is not meant to be a comparison with what the 'victim' walks away with, death or serious injury, simply that the officer typically doesn't 'get off scot free'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree largely with what you are saying here, but there is technically an exceedingly broad principle that governs our use of force.

Your point is well-taken. I said "there isn't a set principle that a cop can always resort to", but I suppose that this is technically untrue, because officers do consult a principle, it's just wide enough to give them latitutude (I guess this is characteristic of a principles--it needs to be contextually applied).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...