Wire: nobody here has attempted to defend the rampant abuses of power. It's fairly obvious you feel strongly about
this, but you're coming across as claiming that's what we're doing and I don't think you're that muddy of a thinker.
I have been attempting to _explain_ why these sorts of things are so prevalent. I agree that they should be stopped, but I cannot believe that people think
the way to change the behavior of the police system as a whole is to take it on one man at a time. Simply put, you're outnumbered and outgunned if you
adopt that stance.
I _hate_ the current police setup. I don't like that I'm forced to fear the police -- not because I fear punishment, but because I might have the bad
luck to get stopped by a cop who (random example) hates fat guys and therefore get the shit kicked out of me for 'resisting arrest'. Okay? I freely
and willfully admit that the system is _broken_. But it's the best we've got, and the attitude so many display -- "fuck all cops, they're
bullies and power-tripping jerks anyway" -- which while experience suggests is prevalent and has an uncomfortable amount of truth, is NOT conducive to
getting the situation changed. It's only making it worse.
As this thread proves, trying to point this out -- trying to explain that cops are not paladins and have the same faults as everyone else, trying to explain
how they think so that you (generic 'you') have at least an inkling of what's going on in the cops head -- instantly draws a line in the sand.
THAT is the problem. Everyone -- cops included -- has adopted the us-vs-them mentality.
Wanderer: I never said the cop has the right -- or legal power -- to the level of control described. What I said was,
they are trained to take control of every situation, and their experience teaches them that the faster and more assertively they take control, the fewer
problems they see. You'll find that rookies and long-timers are the best when it comes to dealing with the public, because the rookies haven't learned
yet how to project that unfortunate but all-too-often necessary attitude of "my way or the highway, dickhead", and the long-timers have figured out
that they don't need to be Captain Asshole all the time to get the job done. The problem cops are the ones who have been there long enough to become
inured to the shit, but not long enough to truly come to terms with it. Unfortunately, that describes the majority of the population.
As for the "be smart, do what you're told, etc" bit... forgive me a bit of over-emphasis. Above all, I want people to _think_, goddammit.
_Think_ about the consequences of your actions, your words, your tone of voice and body language. The cops should too, I agree! But nobody thinks, they just
assume the cop is being an asshole for no reason -- maybe he hates white/black guys, or people that drive -- and they
respond, _without thinking_, in kind.
So, okay, yes. I don't think I should have to say it, but, if the situation calls for it, then by all means politely protest. Carry a card from the ACLU
that details your rights and refer to it before letting the cop search your car or ask for your ID. I'm not saying you should be a compliant drone --
I'm just wanting people to think about the situation before they respond. Ask yourself, "Self, is it worth the possible consequences?" I'd
be willing to bet that, pride aside, more often than not it's not worth it to protest _right then and there_.
Anecdotal example: my wife was arrested falsely in Idaho. The cop dragged her from the car she was in, handcuffed her so tightly she had bruises for a week
and a half, and shoved her roughly into the back of his car. She protested and asked that the cuffs be loosened because they were cutting off circulation --
and she has a documented medical condition which she carries a card for that justifies such things. He threatened to spray her if she didn't keep quiet.
By anybody's account, he was being a dick and a bully. During the arrest, my wife was faced with the choice of cooperating or resisting. Even though
legally he didn't have any legs to stand on, as he was operating under a case of mistaken identity (same first and last name as a person with a warrant,
different middle name, different social, different ages, and different picture on the ID) -- she cooperated. Resisting would have ended the same, because the
cop would have called for backup and nobody is going to listen to the person pleading their innocence when a cop calls for an assist with an unruly suspect.
Instead, she cooperated, because she stopped to think. In the end, the cop was reprimanded and suspended for a month without pay, his captain called us
personally to apologize, and they paid for her doctor visit for the bruising. Should it have happened in the first place? Fuck no! But if things had
escalated, it would have been worse. By thinking, she kept from being hurt or even spending time in jail, and the bully cop has hopefully learned a lesson and
at the very least got punished for his actions.
My point is there's a time and place for protesting, and I would argue that most of the time, that is NOT the moment the injustice is happening.
Morganni: your experiences may have told you otherwise, but that doesn't make you correct in the described
scenario. In regular customer service you don't have an adversarial relationship with the customer -- therefore, you're free to ignore the
"who's in charge" subtext. I speak both from experience and from training in this regard, in several roles -- security, customer service
(direct, phone, and everything in between), and management of a call center. The key difference is that even if you feel like you're at loggerheads with
the customer, it's never really about -you-. The same cannot be said for a cop-vs-suspect scenario.
Epsilon was using analogy to make a point, is all. You personally may not think you are protesting when (hypothetically) you ask for clarification purely for
informational purposes, but the unspoken subtext is that you don't submit to the other person's authority. And cops are trained to look for signs of
that and stamp it out quick. They can't afford to let the suspect gain psychological control of a situation, not because of their egos but because the
longer a situation goes on, the more likely it is to escalate past the point of control. (Some of them it's certainly ego, but I've already admitted
that I'm speaking in broad terms, not specifically about bad cops. Most cops are not bad.)
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs
this, but you're coming across as claiming that's what we're doing and I don't think you're that muddy of a thinker.
I have been attempting to _explain_ why these sorts of things are so prevalent. I agree that they should be stopped, but I cannot believe that people think
the way to change the behavior of the police system as a whole is to take it on one man at a time. Simply put, you're outnumbered and outgunned if you
adopt that stance.
I _hate_ the current police setup. I don't like that I'm forced to fear the police -- not because I fear punishment, but because I might have the bad
luck to get stopped by a cop who (random example) hates fat guys and therefore get the shit kicked out of me for 'resisting arrest'. Okay? I freely
and willfully admit that the system is _broken_. But it's the best we've got, and the attitude so many display -- "fuck all cops, they're
bullies and power-tripping jerks anyway" -- which while experience suggests is prevalent and has an uncomfortable amount of truth, is NOT conducive to
getting the situation changed. It's only making it worse.
As this thread proves, trying to point this out -- trying to explain that cops are not paladins and have the same faults as everyone else, trying to explain
how they think so that you (generic 'you') have at least an inkling of what's going on in the cops head -- instantly draws a line in the sand.
THAT is the problem. Everyone -- cops included -- has adopted the us-vs-them mentality.
Wanderer: I never said the cop has the right -- or legal power -- to the level of control described. What I said was,
they are trained to take control of every situation, and their experience teaches them that the faster and more assertively they take control, the fewer
problems they see. You'll find that rookies and long-timers are the best when it comes to dealing with the public, because the rookies haven't learned
yet how to project that unfortunate but all-too-often necessary attitude of "my way or the highway, dickhead", and the long-timers have figured out
that they don't need to be Captain Asshole all the time to get the job done. The problem cops are the ones who have been there long enough to become
inured to the shit, but not long enough to truly come to terms with it. Unfortunately, that describes the majority of the population.
As for the "be smart, do what you're told, etc" bit... forgive me a bit of over-emphasis. Above all, I want people to _think_, goddammit.
_Think_ about the consequences of your actions, your words, your tone of voice and body language. The cops should too, I agree! But nobody thinks, they just
assume the cop is being an asshole for no reason -- maybe he hates white/black guys, or people that drive -- and they
respond, _without thinking_, in kind.
So, okay, yes. I don't think I should have to say it, but, if the situation calls for it, then by all means politely protest. Carry a card from the ACLU
that details your rights and refer to it before letting the cop search your car or ask for your ID. I'm not saying you should be a compliant drone --
I'm just wanting people to think about the situation before they respond. Ask yourself, "Self, is it worth the possible consequences?" I'd
be willing to bet that, pride aside, more often than not it's not worth it to protest _right then and there_.
Anecdotal example: my wife was arrested falsely in Idaho. The cop dragged her from the car she was in, handcuffed her so tightly she had bruises for a week
and a half, and shoved her roughly into the back of his car. She protested and asked that the cuffs be loosened because they were cutting off circulation --
and she has a documented medical condition which she carries a card for that justifies such things. He threatened to spray her if she didn't keep quiet.
By anybody's account, he was being a dick and a bully. During the arrest, my wife was faced with the choice of cooperating or resisting. Even though
legally he didn't have any legs to stand on, as he was operating under a case of mistaken identity (same first and last name as a person with a warrant,
different middle name, different social, different ages, and different picture on the ID) -- she cooperated. Resisting would have ended the same, because the
cop would have called for backup and nobody is going to listen to the person pleading their innocence when a cop calls for an assist with an unruly suspect.
Instead, she cooperated, because she stopped to think. In the end, the cop was reprimanded and suspended for a month without pay, his captain called us
personally to apologize, and they paid for her doctor visit for the bruising. Should it have happened in the first place? Fuck no! But if things had
escalated, it would have been worse. By thinking, she kept from being hurt or even spending time in jail, and the bully cop has hopefully learned a lesson and
at the very least got punished for his actions.
My point is there's a time and place for protesting, and I would argue that most of the time, that is NOT the moment the injustice is happening.
Morganni: your experiences may have told you otherwise, but that doesn't make you correct in the described
scenario. In regular customer service you don't have an adversarial relationship with the customer -- therefore, you're free to ignore the
"who's in charge" subtext. I speak both from experience and from training in this regard, in several roles -- security, customer service
(direct, phone, and everything in between), and management of a call center. The key difference is that even if you feel like you're at loggerheads with
the customer, it's never really about -you-. The same cannot be said for a cop-vs-suspect scenario.
Epsilon was using analogy to make a point, is all. You personally may not think you are protesting when (hypothetically) you ask for clarification purely for
informational purposes, but the unspoken subtext is that you don't submit to the other person's authority. And cops are trained to look for signs of
that and stamp it out quick. They can't afford to let the suspect gain psychological control of a situation, not because of their egos but because the
longer a situation goes on, the more likely it is to escalate past the point of control. (Some of them it's certainly ego, but I've already admitted
that I'm speaking in broad terms, not specifically about bad cops. Most cops are not bad.)
--sofaspud
--"Listening to your kid is the audio equivalent of a Salvador Dali painting, Spud." --OpMegs