4 ms·

Maybe not backed by evidence, but definitely a reasonable extrapolation. Basic logic and social analysis will inform you that the role a police officer has attr

Maybe not backed by evidence, but definitely a reasonable extrapolation. Basic logic and social analysis will inform you that the role a police officer has attracts two mentalities: those who very strongly want to uphold law and help people, and those that enjoy abusing power and controlling people. Obviously these lie along a spectrum, and there is some overlap. Anecdotally, I know many of the bullies from my high school ended up being police. They enjoyed the power and feeling of beating and subjugating their classmates, and they found a job that pays well and gives them fulfillment. Let me posit this: if you were that type of individual, what better job is there to have than being a cop? Also, if you had that job, would you incriminate yourself after abusing your power, or would you lie, knowing that police protect their own and are often given the benefit of the doubt? I think it's extremely naive to assume that the situation isn't exactly as I described above. The real question is what is the ratio of abusers and bullies to helpers and law upholders.

DFHippie 6y ago
Also, the police omertà business means the law upholders knuckle under to the bullies or get driven out of the force.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  Kind of like the Illuminati. Or Bill Clinton's criticizers - speak up and he orders a hit! /s
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Ah, never mind, don't bother responding to my comment above. I didn't realize that you are just trolling.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      > police omertà business IDK I consider blanket generalizations about policing in the US as the mafia or something to be trolling...
      - craftinator 6y ago
        You responded to a reasonable argument based on understandings of incentive with: > Kind of like the Illuminati. Or Bill Clinton's criticizers - speak up and he orders a hit! /s No argument, but references to the Illuminati and assassinations. Not a whole lot of credibility to stand on, and definitely no reasonable discussion.
gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
> I think it's extremely naive to assume that the situation isn't exactly as I described above. The real question is what is the ratio of abusers and bullies to helpers and law upholders. And ignoring all the unsubstantiated claims you're making - it's completely compatible and most likely that the ratio is overwhelmingly good cops with a few abusers, and generally if/when present, concentrated in specific localities. The generalization that cops are inherently predisposed to evil or something is bizarre, unhelpful and polarizing - not to mention inflammatory to all the cops that are in fact lawful and in many ways more honorable than most citizens in terms of sacrifice, risk, and social good.
- craftinator 6y ago
  We simply don't have any data of quality that could substantiate any claims on this subject. So all claims on it are unsubstantiated. > it's completely compatible and most likely that the ratio is overwhelmingly good cops with a few abusers, and generally if/when present, concentrated in specific localities. What is your reasoning? Not only is this an unsubstantiated claim, but it also comes with no logical reasoning describing how you reached this conclusion, unlike my original post. > The generalization that cops are inherently predisposed to evil or something is bizarre, unhelpful and polarizing - not to mention inflammatory to all the cops that are in fact lawful and in many ways more honorable than most citizens in terms of sacrifice, risk, and social good. You call this idea bizarre, inflammatory, and state that cops are in fact lawful and more honorable than most citizens. You haven't given any evidence to support this, nor have you explained any type of reasoning or logic for how you arrived at this conclusion. I find this very ironic and hypocritical, as you directly accused me of making unsubstantiated claims; I at the very least provide logical reasoning, while you fail to provide anything other than vacuous conclusions.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > So all claims on it are unsubstantiated > I at the very least provide logical reasoning, while you fail to provide anything other than vacuous conclusions At least you're admitting to a priori reasoning and using that to conclude generalizations about an entire profession. A cursory search tells me there's around 1 million law enforcement officers in the US. Like all conspiracy theories - what are the chances there's widespread and indefensible corruption such that all of them are complicit but very little ever leaks? Clearly we see cases of indefensible abuse (as we'd expect in law enforcement given a population of 300+ million people), but perceived prevalence of abuse seems to be hysterically skewed towards "ubiquitous evil" when social media, etc. broadcasts local incidents directly onto everyone's radar where people are primed to view everything in terms of their preconceived narratives and worldviews.
minikites 6y ago
>The real question is what is the ratio of abusers and bullies to helpers and law upholders. The ratio is tilted heavily in favor of abusers and there has been ample evidence showing this since the dawn of modern policing. Modern policing descended from slave patrols and it shows. The militarization of police is a more recent abomination, but not the root cause. There is a third category beyond abusers and "law upholders": those who stand by and do nothing, thereby enabling the abusers and silently endorsing their behavior.
- craftinator 6y ago
  > The ratio is tilted heavily in favor of abusers This has been my personal experience, but I don't know of any statistics that capture this, so I don't think we can make that conclusion at this moment. However, from my time in the Marine Corps, which also attracts some people who are amoral dominators, I can say it very much depends on the culture. The Corps pushes personal accountability and camaraderie very strongly in its culture. I witnessed people who were professed racists change in just a few months to accepting all skin colors, people who were completely self-centered narcissists turn into strong team players. It didn't work all the time, and wasn't uniform across the service, but a strong, zero tolerance culture can mold people into it. > There is a third category beyond abusers and "law upholders": those who stand by and do nothing, thereby enabling the abusers and silently endorsing their behavior. When I listed categories, I should have made it more clear that it's really a spectrum with opposing values on either end. People who stand by and do nothing would lie more towards the middle, not having a strong enough valuation of justice to step in and stop it, but not a strong enough desire for power abuse to join in. A random person on the street could have a strong sense of justice but still not condone police brutality by standing idly, but I think you are right that a police officer is responsible for violence by not attempting to circumvent it; stopping violence like that is the REASON they have special legal protections.

DFHippie 6y ago

Also, the police omertà business means the law upholders knuckle under to the bullies or get driven out of the force.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
Kind of like the Illuminati. Or Bill Clinton's criticizers - speak up and he orders a hit! /s
- craftinator 6y ago
  Ah, never mind, don't bother responding to my comment above. I didn't realize that you are just trolling.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    > police omertà business IDK I consider blanket generalizations about policing in the US as the mafia or something to be trolling...
    - craftinator 6y ago
      You responded to a reasonable argument based on understandings of incentive with: > Kind of like the Illuminati. Or Bill Clinton's criticizers - speak up and he orders a hit! /s No argument, but references to the Illuminati and assassinations. Not a whole lot of credibility to stand on, and definitely no reasonable discussion.

gnusty_gnurc 6y ago

> I think it's extremely naive to assume that the situation isn't exactly as I described above. The real question is what is the ratio of abusers and bullies to helpers and law upholders. And ignoring all the unsubstantiated claims you're making - it's completely compatible and most likely that the ratio is overwhelmingly good cops with a few abusers, and generally if/when present, concentrated in specific localities. The generalization that cops are inherently predisposed to evil or something is bizarre, unhelpful and polarizing - not to mention inflammatory to all the cops that are in fact lawful and in many ways more honorable than most citizens in terms of sacrifice, risk, and social good.

craftinator 6y ago
We simply don't have any data of quality that could substantiate any claims on this subject. So all claims on it are unsubstantiated. > it's completely compatible and most likely that the ratio is overwhelmingly good cops with a few abusers, and generally if/when present, concentrated in specific localities. What is your reasoning? Not only is this an unsubstantiated claim, but it also comes with no logical reasoning describing how you reached this conclusion, unlike my original post. > The generalization that cops are inherently predisposed to evil or something is bizarre, unhelpful and polarizing - not to mention inflammatory to all the cops that are in fact lawful and in many ways more honorable than most citizens in terms of sacrifice, risk, and social good. You call this idea bizarre, inflammatory, and state that cops are in fact lawful and more honorable than most citizens. You haven't given any evidence to support this, nor have you explained any type of reasoning or logic for how you arrived at this conclusion. I find this very ironic and hypocritical, as you directly accused me of making unsubstantiated claims; I at the very least provide logical reasoning, while you fail to provide anything other than vacuous conclusions.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  > So all claims on it are unsubstantiated > I at the very least provide logical reasoning, while you fail to provide anything other than vacuous conclusions At least you're admitting to a priori reasoning and using that to conclude generalizations about an entire profession. A cursory search tells me there's around 1 million law enforcement officers in the US. Like all conspiracy theories - what are the chances there's widespread and indefensible corruption such that all of them are complicit but very little ever leaks? Clearly we see cases of indefensible abuse (as we'd expect in law enforcement given a population of 300+ million people), but perceived prevalence of abuse seems to be hysterically skewed towards "ubiquitous evil" when social media, etc. broadcasts local incidents directly onto everyone's radar where people are primed to view everything in terms of their preconceived narratives and worldviews.

minikites 6y ago

>The real question is what is the ratio of abusers and bullies to helpers and law upholders. The ratio is tilted heavily in favor of abusers and there has been ample evidence showing this since the dawn of modern policing. Modern policing descended from slave patrols and it shows. The militarization of police is a more recent abomination, but not the root cause. There is a third category beyond abusers and "law upholders": those who stand by and do nothing, thereby enabling the abusers and silently endorsing their behavior.

craftinator 6y ago
> The ratio is tilted heavily in favor of abusers This has been my personal experience, but I don't know of any statistics that capture this, so I don't think we can make that conclusion at this moment. However, from my time in the Marine Corps, which also attracts some people who are amoral dominators, I can say it very much depends on the culture. The Corps pushes personal accountability and camaraderie very strongly in its culture. I witnessed people who were professed racists change in just a few months to accepting all skin colors, people who were completely self-centered narcissists turn into strong team players. It didn't work all the time, and wasn't uniform across the service, but a strong, zero tolerance culture can mold people into it. > There is a third category beyond abusers and "law upholders": those who stand by and do nothing, thereby enabling the abusers and silently endorsing their behavior. When I listed categories, I should have made it more clear that it's really a spectrum with opposing values on either end. People who stand by and do nothing would lie more towards the middle, not having a strong enough valuation of justice to step in and stop it, but not a strong enough desire for power abuse to join in. A random person on the street could have a strong sense of justice but still not condone police brutality by standing idly, but I think you are right that a police officer is responsible for violence by not attempting to circumvent it; stopping violence like that is the REASON they have special legal protections.