"They're not all bad"

[Padawanbater2]

I bet if you're a conservative, hearing those words reminds you of a progressive talking about Islam/Muslims

I bet if you're a liberal, hearing those words reminds you of a conservative arguing in support of American cops


So I think there has to be something more to this kind of argument than what's on the surface.. Is this a flaw in our reasoning? It should be obvious that not all Muslims are bad people just like not all cops are bad people, so why do we argue as if they all are? What does demonizing entire groups of people actually accomplish in the end and if it doesn't accomplish anything, why do we do it?

 

[Olive Drab Green]

There is no they. That's the illusion. We're all us.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There is no they. That's the illusion. We're all us.

I think that's also fundamentally flawed. Factions/groups/teams, etc., whatever you want to call them, exist in reality and being a member of one of these teams, depending on who it is and your own perspective of it, can benefit you tremendously. The exclusion of (or maybe even the very existence of) access to said teams and the luxuries that come with it is what causes the tension. For example, average citizens don't have access to the same justice system elites do = economic tension. Minorities don't have access to the same justice system average citizens do = racial tension.

 

[desert dude]

I bet if you're a conservative, hearing those words reminds you of a progressive talking about Islam/Muslims

I bet if you're a liberal, hearing those words reminds you of a conservative arguing in support of American cops


So I think there has to be something more to this kind of argument than what's on the surface.. Is this a flaw in our reasoning? It should be obvious that not all Muslims are bad people just like not all cops are bad people, so why do we argue as if they all are? What does demonizing entire groups of people actually accomplish in the end and if it doesn't accomplish anything, why do we do it?

I intentionally did not read any comments beyond your original topic post. I don't want to get drawn into the trolling.

"They are not all bad." Of course this is true. Most Muslims are decent people that I would be happy to have as neighbors. They have a goofy religion, but so do Mormons, Baptists, and Catholics. This is America, and that shit is black-letter-law tolerated.

Of course not all cops are bad. I think a relatively small percentage are inherently evil. Like it or not, we need cops. Personally, I avoid them because they are not pleasant people, but they serve a valid purpose.

In both groups, the actions of a small percentage makes the whole group look bad.

Why are these two groups demonized? For the same reason any group is demonized: tribalism. That is human nature. The truly evil among us (the two political parties, and their lackies) exploit that human tendency for their own purposes.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I disagree. If bad cops and Islamic extremists didn't act the way they do now, the tension as we know it wouldn't exist. The accountability lies with the individuals themselves, so I think it should be up to the moderates inside these groups to hold them responsible, ie. good cops and average Muslims. When you get average cops who can't even admit to potential wrongdoing by police;

Or 'moderate' Muslims who support death for apostacy;

Then there's going to be tension

Unfortunately with both of these groups; Bad cops and Islamic extremists, there is no end to this in sight. I don't see bad cops all of a sudden changing out of the goodness of their hearts and I don't see Islamic extremists hanging up the plastic explosives any time soon..

 

[resinousflowers420]

 

[Fogdog]

I bet if you're a conservative, hearing those words reminds you of a progressive talking about Islam/Muslims

I bet if you're a liberal, hearing those words reminds you of a conservative arguing in support of American cops


So I think there has to be something more to this kind of argument than what's on the surface.. Is this a flaw in our reasoning? It should be obvious that not all Muslims are bad people just like not all cops are bad people, so why do we argue as if they all are? What does demonizing entire groups of people actually accomplish in the end and if it doesn't accomplish anything, why do we do it?

The argument ends when it comes to cops. Because cops cover for other cops who behave badly. The entire force rallies around these "bad" cops. Which makes them all bad.

 

[Ace Yonder]

The argument ends when it comes to cops. Because cops cover for other cops who behave badly. The entire force rallies around these "bad" cops. Which makes them all bad.

All groups do this though, it's not a behavior that is unique to cops. Every group protects their own more than they should and blames others more than they deserve. It's so ingrained into our lives that it's present everywhere, just look at phrases and idioms like "A friend would bail you out of jail, a best friend would be sitting next to you saying 'Dude we fucked up'", "Snitches get stitches", "There's nothing lower than a rat", etc. Everyone is coached that it's "Us" vs "Them", and you never take "Their" side. It's not just a cop thing, it's a human thing. Failure to hold ourselves and our own accountable is one of humanity's worst flaws.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The argument ends when it comes to cops. Because cops cover for other cops who behave badly. The entire force rallies around these "bad" cops. Which makes them all bad.

Do the potential consequences a cop might face for testifying against a fellow cop matter? There probably aren't many PDs in America who would keep a cop after having testified against a fellow cop or their department, right? That seems like an incredibly big incentive to keep your mouth shut which is probably why most do. You can certainly blame them for that, but what about this atmosphere of pseudo-loyalty? It's almost like you have to stand by fellow cops and the department even when you know they're wrong because if you don't, you won't be a cop anymore. To me, that seems like the bigger problem (which isn't to say individual cops who choose to do the wrong thing is not a problem, too)

 

[Ace Yonder]

Do the potential consequences a cop might face for testifying against a fellow cop matter? There probably aren't many PDs in America who would keep a cop after having testified against a fellow cop or their department, right? That seems like an incredibly big incentive to keep your mouth shut which is probably why most do. You can certainly blame them for that, but what about this atmosphere of pseudo-loyalty? It's almost like you have to stand by fellow cops and the department even when you know they're wrong because if you don't, you won't be a cop anymore. To me, that seems like the bigger problem (which isn't to say individual cops who choose to do the wrong thing is not a problem, too)

You could replace the word "Cop" with just about any group and it would read just as accurate.

 

[Flaming Pie]

All groups do this though, it's not a behavior that is unique to cops. Every group protects their own more than they should and blames others more than they deserve. It's so ingrained into our lives that it's present everywhere, just look at phrases and idioms like "A friend would bail you out of jail, a best friend would be sitting next to you saying 'Dude we fucked up'", "Snitches get stitches", "There's nothing lower than a rat", etc. Everyone is coached that it's "Us" vs "Them", and you never take "Their" side. It's not just a cop thing, it's a human thing. Failure to hold ourselves and our own accountable is one of humanity's worst flaws.

It's like the 5th wave. Break the trust and civilization falls.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You could replace the word "Cop" with just about any group and it would read just as accurate.

I would agree on the sentiment but disagree on the degree of potential consequences. Some are much worse, some are probably pretty negligible

The idea that "you shouldn't rat on your own" is not something that should be ingrained inside police departments, even if it is "human nature"

 

[Fogdog]

Do the potential consequences a cop might face for testifying against a fellow cop matter? There probably aren't many PDs in America who would keep a cop after having testified against a fellow cop or their department, right? That seems like an incredibly big incentive to keep your mouth shut which is probably why most do. You can certainly blame them for that, but what about this atmosphere of pseudo-loyalty? It's almost like you have to stand by fellow cops and the department even when you know they're wrong because if you don't, you won't be a cop anymore. To me, that seems like the bigger problem (which isn't to say individual cops who choose to do the wrong thing is not a problem, too)

So, there it is. As long as the good cops worry about what a bad cop will do to them then the circle is closed. Where I work, we stay open and honest about what we do. If we don't, we get fired or at least reprimanded and the loss of trust among colleagues would pretty much end any chances of advancement. All this because the cost of faking a test result or data potentially costs the company big time in terms of money and reputation. We revile people who would do this because it makes us less safe.

The problem with police departments is the embedded attitude that we are safer by being silent. Yet killer cops are harming the image of the force. It makes officers less safe because outsiders won't trust them. It costs the state money because of damages from lawsuits. Yet everybody worries about how honesty will break the unity of the police force. I ask, can anybody really say that with anything to back that statement?

 

[ttystikk]

It's like the 5th wave. Break the trust and civilization falls.

Crazy how fragile civilisation is, huh?

Now you understand why I'm so goddamned worried.

 

[ttystikk]

I would agree on the sentiment but disagree on the degree of potential consequences. Some are much worse, some are probably pretty negligible

The idea that "you shouldn't rat on your own" is not something that should be ingrained inside police departments, even if it is "human nature"

Instead, we need the kind of ingrained professionalism that says a bad cop is a liability to himself, his team, policing at large AND the public safety and therefore must be excised from the force as quickly as possible, so as not to endanger the rest of us.

That's a damned tall order, and it's a lot harder to instill and enforce than 'us vs them'. But it is the only way.

 

[ttystikk]

So, there it is. As long as the good cops worry about what a bad cop will do to them then the circle is closed. Where I work, we stay open and honest about what we do. If we don't, we get fired or at least reprimanded and the loss of trust among colleagues would pretty much end any chances of advancement. All this because the cost of faking a test result or data potentially costs the company big time in terms of money and reputation. We revile people who would do this because it makes us less safe.

The problem with police departments is the embedded attitude that we are safer by being silent. Yet killer cops are harming the image of the force. It makes officers less safe because outsiders won't trust them. It costs the state money because of damages from lawsuits. Yet everybody worries about how honesty will break the unity of the police force. I ask, can anybody really say that with anything to back that statement?

THIS. It's a codependent relationship, mutually abusive. And it must stop.

 

[Fogdog]

THIS. It's a codependent relationship, mutually abusive. And it must stop.

It has to stop. Of course the current system plays to the worst offender, which is why the worst offenders probably would be dangerous to somebody who reported them. So they are done once outed. Based on my work and life experience, I challenge the idea that it is inevitable that a force's morale and team bonding would break if other cops reported offending cops.

I think this idea of good cops must be silent about others bad behavior or the force will fall apart is a myth. Rogue cops make everybody less safe, including their partners.

On the other hand, breaking the code of silence in an entrenched system is unimaginably hard. I get it. I just think that an honest system isn't necessarily doomed.

And pie's an idiot.

 

[Rob Roy]

The argument ends when it comes to cops. Because cops cover for other cops who behave badly. The entire force rallies around these "bad" cops. Which makes them all bad.

Good point.

Some laws are clearly immoral, cops agree to enforce ALL laws. By doing so, they explicitly admit either they are immoral or that they are magically exempt from being responsible for their own actions when they enforce immoral laws, which is of course absurd.

Either way, they are willingly and knowingly engaging in immoral acts for pay, hence they are bad.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I posted this on the LEO sub on Reddit;

"Are there any potential consequences for criticizing your department or a fellow officer if you know they're wrong or broke the law?"

Here is the response I've gotten so far;

"Publicly criticizing? Absolutely. You are expected to submit a complaint about illegal conduct through the chain of command. This starts an internal investigation, ending with termination and arrest where appropriate.

Are there consequences for submitting a chain of command complaint? None that won't get you early retirement. Retaliatory conduct usually ends in the person walking away with a huge settlement.

The Blue Wall of Silence is a big myth. A cop's job is to report the truth. No cop is going to risk their family's livelihood to cover for a lawbreaker. We report the truth in any incident that happens. Unless you plan on paying my mortgage, don't expect me to lie for you.

The bonus is, telling the truth usually helps everyone."

"Thanks for the reply

Why do you think the myth of the blue wall of silence is so prevalent?"

(different person replied to my comment)

"Movies, TV, news harping on 0.000001% of actually crooked cops"


Thoughts on this?

 

[Lacedwitgame]

If your a kindhearted banker that works for the mob....are you still a good person?