RoR: Forum

"Do you know any cops, Ryan? I suspect not. I know several, and I'm even related to a few."
Yes, I do. So now we have a difference of subjective beliefs, as you have decided that reason or proof are too valuable to be wasted on these human scum who keep you safe.
"Busting down doors with guns and armor over a card game, pot plants, or over due child support, yes."
Police go in heavy in situations like that because at some point someone had to explain to a child that daddy wasn't coming home because he stood in front of a door with a warrant and knocked like a civilized person, and got gunned down.
"No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news."
Simply amazing. So anything reported in the news is indicative of an entire class of person?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473434,00.html
Guess all girls are dangerous. "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473442,00.html
Oops, those darn mexicans, just can't trustem. Damn gun runners and drug smugglers, the whole lot of'em. "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/27/movie.shooting/index.html
White guys are dangerous, and no one should ever be allowed to own a firearm. "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news."
Hey, didn't a major investment broker just defraud a lot of people? I read that somewhere. Madoff, right? Man, it just goes to show you that white men businessmen are soulless thieving scum. "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,473442,00.html
Hey, wow. A police officer treating a minority kid like a fellow human being, just drove him to the house to see if he could get a parent involved. Good thing that kid decided to do the right thing and shoot that cop. Unjust swine like that deserve what they get, right?

I am totally opposed to seatbelt, helmet, most drug, and many other laws. The problem isn't law enforcement, its the legislative process that thinks the nanny state is the answer. Btw, most of the seatbelt checkpoints and whatnot, according to police I've talked to, is funded by federal money specifically allocated for those stupid initiatives. When I asked the officer why they don't have "Find child molester or murderer" federal initiatives he said he had no idea, but he wished they would.

The sad thing is that if you got your wish, if the police suddenly just went on strike. I doubt anyone would make it a month without being either killed or finding someone to do the police's job. For every intellectual that says "NIOF!" to the thugs and killers of this world, there has to be a guy very close at hand with his hand on a weapon saying. "They mean it, let them be." Since you think police love abuse so much, do you think if they repealed seatbelt laws and all the other stupid crap passed as law, that the police would just rise up? They have all the guns and training. If they're really the brutal thugs you believe, why the hell do they need the sanction of a seatbelt law to harass anyone? Brutal thugs don't need the sanction of a law to do there worst, they never have. The answer is police aren't brutal thugs, they would likely go to work and simply enforce the laws they're given by our elected officials to enforce.

Post 21

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 6:07pm

Steve Wolfer: "I don't know how much discretion the police have ... What I do know is that there should not be enough discretion as to frustrate the intent of the law... "

In 14 states[*], there is no death penalty, except on the street. Here in Michigan, a cop has more power than the state.

To answer your earlier question, yes, after I posted and re-read what you wrote, I saw the ambiguity. I still point out that police candidates do, indeed, study constitutional law and political science as part of their training. They also take classes in ethics. At my community college, the statistics class was the same math class everyone took -- filled with nurses, mostly, in fact. Symbolic Logic was a philosophy department offering, heavy with cops for whom it was a requirement. Ethics, however, was a Criminal Justice class. Poli Sci was independent. Constitutional Law was taught in crim.

However, I had an exchange with the head of our department over the qualifications of instructors. As it so happens, there is another 2-year program, the "police academy." Again, the same kinds of classes, but all taught in-house -- and no logic... no statistics... no sociology ... just two years of criminal justice, supplemented with firearms and driving. That said, as a campus safety patrol officer myself 2005-2006 oddly enough responsible for keeping the cadets safe from harm, I did stop and watch many of those classes. They got Miranda and Terry and all the rest. They got the talks about the fact that since African American are only 13% of the population and Hispanics are 15%, you are still three times more likely to bust a white person on a pretext and find a criminal. They know. They get the lectures.

As Robert Malcom and I have pointed out, guardians are not traders. And as you have said often and well, you personally do not want them to be. Fair enough all the way around, I grant you. In those other threads, we can argue whether and to what extend guardians should be traders, but here and now, you and I are pretty much on the same page.

As I said, in our associate's degree program, we do have a criminal justice ethics class. A police officer faces ethical problems and ethical conflicts repeatedly. My topic thread in Dissent on Police Forces and Courts of Law opens with corruption in New Orleans. It starts with overlooking gambling and drunknesses and under-age liquour and ends with cops killing cops over drug money. (Read about Len Davis and Antoinette Frank.) But the problems are complex. New Orleans is not Minneapolis. Whether the problem is "bad apples" or "bad barrels" or something else is widely debated.

[*] Modified or de defacto: Alaska Massachusetts New York West Virginia. De jure: Hawaii Michigan North Dakota Wisconsin District of Columbia, Iowa Minnesota Rhode Island, Maine New Jersey Vermont.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/28, 6:32pm)

Post 22

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 6:16pm

I never know quite how to respond to being implored to cover this and that, in addition to what I do cover, nor to complaints about how I ignore some nuances--like the cops who nail you for a u-turn aren't, of course, like those who haul Jews to gas chambers. Within a certain length that a column takes up one needs to write in succinct ways and it is often assumed, especially on a site like this one, that readers need not be reminded that the magnitude of a transgression isn't at issue; what is is the coercive nature of it. Police malpractice can be minor or major but it is important to notice it since without that the malpractice escalates into unchecked malfeasance. If one doesn't check the cops' overreach when it is still relatively minor, the task of containing them will be impossible--they will have become the absolute rulers of the realm, never mind considerations of propriety, limits, etc. I have taken on the task of calling attention to all government misconduct, small or large, given that I developed a facility to spot it very early in my life (when I lived under "communism" [actually fascism]) and given that such people are very useful in the effort to defend human liberty.
(Edited by Machan on 12/28, 6:19pm)

(Edited by Machan on 12/28, 6:20pm)

Post 23

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:05pm

I repeat, to equate seat belt law enforcement with putting families in the gas chamber is irrational.

It's naive to think one can't get shot and murdered by police over a seat-belt violation. People have been killed by them for much less.

Interestingly, I was visiting with my daughter's this evening, she's a waitress at a popular chain restaurant. They were informed by management today that the police would be coming into the establishment to test the waitstaff willingness to adhere to the state's drinking age limit laws. They do this by hiring underage individuals to go into the place and ordering alcohol. If the server checks ID and refuses, the underage individuals are instructed by the officers to harass, insult, beg, and do whatever they can to get the staff to bend the rules.

My daughter just turned 20 years old and was shocked by this. "Mom, they're TRYING to get us in trouble! Why would they do that??"

Why indeed.

Post 24

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:12pm

Tibor,

Your column was clear and enjoyable - you were discussing a pet peeve. I responded with a pet peeve of my own. Peeves by their nature are personal and allowed a degree of subjectivity. The posts that followed, NOT your column, generated the disagreements - at least for me. Here at RoR we don't just preach to the choir, we argue.

I enjoy you columns. I find it is rare that I disagree. But the question that came up for me - out of the posts - has been raised before. When does a person, in principle, shift from seeing our police as primarily protectors, to like we would see the police in N. Korea? The statement about vice cops might give a clue - they see citizens as targets. Robbery/Homicide doesn't - they see victims of rights violations and bad guys. We are a mixed economy, with a great many laws protecting individual rights, and an increasing number that are violations of our rights. When does one "go on strike," engage in civil disobedience, and change how they view our government? Right now, for me, there is no question but that the police are much more my friend (protecting my rights) than an enemy or threat.

Post 25

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:15pm

So now we have a difference of subjective beliefs, as you have decided that reason or proof are too valuable to be wasted on these human scum who keep you safe.

Where have I called anyone "scum," Ryan? Many of them are much worse than that. They won't even come when you call in this town. But they'll have a "sick out" at contract time with no trouble at all.

The rest of your post was pure nonsense. Sorry Ryan, but you don't understand this argument at all. There is a difference between enforcing laws that protect rights, and those that violate them. To you and to Steve, zee law iz zee law, which is a very intrinsic view to have.

Post 26

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 7:26pm

Teresa,

There is nothing intrinsic in the views I've expressed. I've spoken of good laws and bad laws repeatedly.

Ryan and I have both tried to point out that branding all police in this country as bad is foolish. We have tried to point out that enforcing seat belt laws is not the same as hauling Jews to the gas chambers. That fact that you resist such obvious facts makes it silly for me to respond any further.

Post 27

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 8:10pm

"Few cops care about how just a law is, or not. The more laws there are that impede freedom, the more overtime they get. "
"Cops care about the law, regardless of it's lack of rationality, and so did Nazi officers who raided neighborhoods and loaded Jews into cattle cars. Not a whole lot of difference between them to me."
"Who in their right mind would want to be a police officer in this country? A mindless thug, maybe."

I absolutely apologize for giving you the opportunity to not answer any question raised in my post by objecting to my use of the word scum. The above quotes are from you. "Where have I called anyone "scum," Ryan?" You're right, you didn't use that particular word. Greedy, unjust, irrational, nazi, mindless thugs was what I should have said, as that is what you've called the police.

"They won't even come when you call in this town." The question is "Why are you even calling these greedy, unjust, irrational, nazi, mindless thugs at all?"

I think I do understand the arguement. "Working closely with one officer of the law, and working inside of the system itself for a while killed all the romance I once had for the profession." and "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news."
So lets paraphrase that. You knew this one cop a while back, and he was an a**hole. The system sucks. You don't feel the need to study the matter. The paper and local news give you all the info you need. Cops are greedy, unjust, irrational, nazi, mindless thugs, and to make it worse, they don't even come to help you when you call. Sound about right?
I'm curious that you would say my whole post was nonsense, considering I took something you said. "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news.", and applied it to other groupings of people just as you've applied it to the police. If that seems like nonsense to you, then you see why your own argument is nonsense, if you could look at it without the emotion that you obviously feel about this subject.

I'm not saying the law is the law and thats it. I'm saying the law needs to be changed, because its extremely stupid. Heres a metaphor, if you and four others hire a security guard to protect your house, and the four others decided that in addition to that protection they only want people in green pants to be allowed access. The security guard isn't a nazi for enforcing the wishes of his employers, even if their wishes are extremely stupid.

To answer your comments about police being overzealous in finding offenders and upholding the law. I WANT them to be as zealous as possible. I don't want any weasel politicians to be able to pass a law to please some group or another and hope that a cop just won't enforce it because its stupid. I want enforcement to be so thorough that the citizens run to city hall and scream "ENOUGH!".

Post 28

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 8:49pm

Awesome Ryan. Home run on all points.

I've worked every kind of job, laborer, landscaper, carpenter, IC electrician in the Navy, bookstore employee, self-defense and fitness instructor, security systems installer, electronics technician, electronics engineer. In any group of people you have a few who are very good and conscientious at what they do, some average, some mediocre, and the guys you really wish would go do something else. This "bell curve" distribution works across any group, whether they're MD's with umpteen years of school and a license or the guy mowing your lawn. Why would anyone think that cops would be any different? Of course there will be asshole cops. A few. My gripe is with the laws and the lawmakers, I have no gripes about the cops. I want them to enforce the laws as written and look out for themselves. I am saddened whenever I hear of a cop killed in the line of duty.

Post 29

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 10:02pm

My daughter just turned 20 years old and was shocked by this. "Mom, they're TRYING to get us in trouble! Why would they do that??"

I am curious - according to Michigan Law - an individual under 21 cannot possess or use alcohol (I realize there a certain and strict exceptions - for example in the privacy of the home), but a minor cannot serve alcohol - an establishment cannot permit the serving alcohol to a minor but cannot permit a minor to serve alcohol to the customer.

Post 30

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 3:34am

"They won't even come when you call in this town." The question is "Why are you even calling these greedy, unjust, irrational, nazi, mindless thugs at all?"

Well, I was kinda hoping they'd do their job and protect people. I've called because someone was being assaulted, and because I've found stolen property, or abandoned (read: stolen) cars in private lots, as well as drunk drivers, and once because I saw a man get hit by a car while trying to cross the street. I've called over crazy bums harassing people outside of my workplace.

If it's "seatbelt violation day," well, it's amazing how many cops you'll see in one day.

There isn't a whole lot of money in it for city coffers over that stuff, though. There is a lot of money involved in "pull people over for not wearing a seat belt day," however.

I think it's amazing that you see no difference between enforcing a law in place to protect rights, and enforcing a law (through manipulation) that does nothing but violate rights.

It's equally amazing, as well as depressing, to think an Objectivist would hold police innocent for manipulating an unjust law in order to raise capital. How is this in any way justifiable?

I've worked in Booking, County Criminal Records, and Juvenile Court. Objectivism was very helpful in helping me see through the motives involved in someone taking a job that facilitated a violation of rights. Very helpful.

I'm sure you'd agree that thinking is a voluntary effort, right? It isn't automatic, true? Ask any police officer why they arrest people for smoking pot, or selling a few fatties (or any unjust law at all). Just ask them, and prepare to marvel at the rationalizations they'll offer. A robot is a robot. A dolt is a dolt.

I am unwilling to blame the law for anyone who won't use their mind. For some here, the law is a rational excuse not to think.

So lets paraphrase that. You knew this one cop a while back, and he was an a**hole. The system sucks. You don't feel the need to study the matter. The paper and local news give you all the info you need. Cops are greedy, unjust, irrational, nazi, mindless thugs, and to make it worse, they don't even come to help you when you call. Sound about right?

Is it fun for you to mischaracterized my argument this way? I wonder if you could get any more dishonest, Ryan. Maybe if you tried a little harder.

Keep obeying those rights violating laws, Ryan, but the law and it's enforcers are one and the same.

I'm curious that you would say my whole post was nonsense, considering I took something you said. "No study is necessary. Just read the paper, or watch your local news.", and applied it to other groupings of people just as you've applied it to the police. If that seems like nonsense to you, then you see why your own argument is nonsense, if you could look at it without the emotion that you obviously feel about this subject.

Because you're being hopelessly dishonest, Ryan, refusing to see the distinction I'm making between enforcing laws that violate rights, and those in place to protect them. It's dishonest, Ryan, and I won't entertain your ridiculous blending of the two.

I'm not saying the law is the law and thats it. I'm saying the law needs to be changed, because its extremely stupid. Heres a metaphor, if you and four others hire a security guard to protect your house, and the four others decided that in addition to that protection they only want people in green pants to be allowed access. The security guard isn't a nazi for enforcing the wishes of his employers, even if their wishes are extremely stupid.

A security guard paid with private money. Right. Can you say "equivocation," Ryan? What a piss poor example.

With regard to enforcement, that's exactly what you're saying. The law is the law, and oh please be zealous in it's enforcement. I won't object.

To answer your comments about police being overzealous in finding offenders and upholding the law. I WANT them to be as zealous as possible. I don't want any weasel politicians to be able to pass a law to please some group or another and hope that a cop just won't enforce it because its stupid. I want enforcement to be so thorough that the citizens run to city hall and scream "ENOUGH!".

Yes, well, good luck with that. When is enough enough? At what point would enough be enough? They'll just pass laws forbidding people from screaming "enough" at city hall, and the police would be obliged to enforce them, no? Not any different than passing a law forbidding any other activity.

I've changed my mind, Ryan. You're not dishonest, just naive.

It might be wise to familiarise yourself with hiring standards. They're interesting in this regard.

Post 31

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 4:55am

Too much ad hominem, too little civility and argumentation. Surely didn't wish to encourage that.

Post 32

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 7:55am

As I've said repeatedly, I absolutely don't support laws of the sort you've mentioned. My point has been that your characterization that ALL police are thugs or unjust morons is baseless and without merit. If you had said that your local police had problems, or were corrupt, or whatever, you wouldn't have seen me leap to their defense. I don't know the police where you live, and its entirely possible to me that they have a lot of problems. They might need to be cleaned up. People might need to be fired. I'm not there, so I don't know. I do know that the profession is a vital one, and that any sweeping statement as to the lack of value of policing or police officers is unwarranted. Hell yes, there are some bad officers out there. I'm of the opinion that corrupt officers should receive drastically worse penalty than the average citizen would get for the same crimes.
I do not believe I have mischaracterized your argument at all. If you believe that I have, feel free to post those quotes regarding cops being greedy, nazis, or mindless thugs and respond with what you meant when you wrote it. Restating what you say isn't dishonesty, even when you don't like how it makes your argument look. You've equated police to Nazis and you call me dishonest. The complete abandonment of law enforcement has been advocated in this thread, and you call my naive.
The law and its enforcers are NOT one and the same. As a matter of fact our entire system is designed to prevent just such a thing. Thats why laws are legislated, then enforced, then adjudicated by completely different branches.
There is a point where I would expect police to cease to enforce certain laws, but that would be the point where the legislature has passed laws that are spectacularly unjust, such as allowing summary execution of citizens or something similar. Until that day comes I expect law enforcement to enforce the law, and I expect them to do it to the best of their ability. It is my responsibility to press my elected officials to change laws that are irrational or unjust. I want them to enforce the stupid seatbelt law until I can get it off the books because I really don't want to get involved in a gunfight in my front yard over food. The injustice of a seatbelt law, or something similar, isn't worth losing the entirety of law enforcement, which was what was originally advocated in this thread. Nor is it reason to demonize the entire profession.

I'll close by noting that you have said that for some here the law is a rational excuse not to think, which is untrue for me at least. I did think, I thought about the consequences of no law enforcement. I thought about how if the police were as corrupt as you claim, they would just seize control, but they don't. Its a very dangerous thing to state that no study is necessary on a subject, any subject. Your emotions regarding some police you knew and your local jurisdiction and its problems is not a rational excuse for not thinking either, Teresa.

Post 33

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 8:41am

Even in this somewhat playful piece I was careful and said "Cops who swagger really put me off..." and wasn't targeting them all!

Post 34

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 9:02am

I hope that you see that the bulk of this thread really hasn't been involved in refuting much of your original writing. A counterpoint was stated, regarding the need to change unjust law in the legislature. You made a comment regarding the idea that all right minded police officers should resign, lest they continue to support an overreaching gov't. The only counterpoint to that was pointing out the likely highly negative effects should such an event take place. If all law enforcement "shrugs" we will be in a lot of trouble. Where this thread went down the rabbit hole was when the equivalence was drawn between police officers and nazis.

Post 35

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:15am

How's this for swagger?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jv1jlYYgYk

This is more disturbing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oB0k2gHA&feature=related

When I think of police or anyone else possessing special authority and power over others I am reminded of this quote from Peter Parker's uncle in the movie Spiderman who states that "with great power comes great responsibility".

Post 36

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:17am

Re: Ryan's point, a few years, maybe even a decade ago, the San Francisco PD went on strike and lo and behold they were hardly missed. They quickly returned to work! I am surprise that so many contributors to this discussion have such enormous confidence in the integrity and competence of police officers. I also regard their service at the very basic level important but suspect that there is a lot of fat there because of the many "laws" that are in need of enforcement, many of which do not belong in a free society.

Post 37

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:43am

Steven, I'll be the first to say it. Some cops are complete immoral a**holes. Some are criminals. This kind of thing has to stop. My comments reflect my belief that the profession itself is an honorable one, and that we need it, and have largely been in response to comments of the "Police are Nazi thugs" variety.
Machan, I would absolutely agree that there is quite a bit of fat to cut as far as our current laws are concerned. I have enormous confidence in the integrity and competence of SOME of our police officers, enough that I take exception to sweeping proclamations of nazism, thuggish behavior, and greed. I do not believe you personally have made any statements to that effect here, but they have been made and that is what I've responded to. I think if it came right down to it, and got much worse, probably 50 % would say enough, I refuse to enforce these laws, while the other 50% would go along out of corruption or the desire to attempt to do some good from the inside. I can't back that up any more than the "Cops are nazis" camp can back up their assertions, its just my opinion. I do know that in a perfect society we would need people to do this job, and the people we would get to do it would be very similar to the ones who do this work now. They need better guidance, and less extraneous bulls**t to do. They don't need widespread condemnation for the behavior of the turds, because some of them ARE in it to do good, and we need them. They need objectivism, not condemnation by objectivists. Do you really think any police officer interested in objectivist thinking is going to pursue it with such general anti-police sentiment thrown around? Objectivist activism is described as a war against irrationality elsewhere on this site. To win something like that you need a grassroots movement. You need an insurgency of the mind. You especially need people thinking about objectivism in the institutions in the most danger of abuse, especially if we need those institutions. Throwing loaded names out like Nazi does nothing to help the situation, it just polarizes it.

Post 38

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:48am

I suspect that the police in one city can be significantly worse than in another - just as some departments - like vice - will be much worse than others.

The police have been under attack from the left, not well supported from anywhere, and the resulting feeling of being under siege has its effect. As morale gets lower, they have less motivation for the ugly and dangerous part of the job and would rather be out on seat-belt patrol. I know some people in the Coast Guard and they tell me that there are, in effect, two Coast Guards, the administrative paper pushers and those that go to sea to perform sometimes dangerous missions. I suspect that you could dichotomize the the police in a similar way - those whose primary focus is union activities, over-time, covering their asses, and those who stay true to the reason for joining - putting away bad guys - those who are on the front-lines, the bad neighborhoods.

Our mixed economy, by its nature, has too many laws - too many that violate our rights. They are added on top of the laws that criminalize violation of our rights. A balanced view of this issue means seeing that there are cops that are dealing with assaults, muggings, car jackings, murders, armed robbery, homicide, theft, extortion, rape and all the other ugly ways in which rights can be violated.

I have worked with some good cops, people with integrity who believed in what they were doing - this was over a 5 year period. I've also run into the swaggering bully type and the bureaucrat type - I see this spectrum as a normal result of a mixed economy. I expect it to get worse.

I appreciate Tibor's observations and I'm glad that there are those capable of seeing and describing the danger of the increasingly authoritarian government. But I have seen first hand the other source of danger - the thugs who make their living violating rights. They get up every day and go out to find new cars to steal or victims to mug. The only way to address the whole problem is getting rid of all the laws that are not required to support individual rights.

Post 39

Monday, December 29, 2008 - 1:24pm