So the law making murder illegal restricts someone's freedom to kill, right? Except that it removes someone else's right to live. I have to say, CK, that is a pretty stupid post.
Splinter: Police Corruption vs. the Presumption of Nobility
- Thread starter Captain Kremmen
- Start date
So the law making murder illegal restricts someone's freedom to kill, right? Except that it removes someone else's right to live. I have to say, CK, that is a pretty stupid post.
I have not said that there should be no laws governing the individual.
That would make society chaos.
In the case of murder, the law restricts freedom, but is warranted.
Come to think of it, I'm proceeding in the same direction as Islamic Law here.
I'm not sure I want to do that.
That would make society chaos.
In the case of murder, the law restricts freedom, but is warranted.
Come to think of it, I'm proceeding in the same direction as Islamic Law here.
I'm not sure I want to do that.
OK, I'm in a good mood so I'll let you off. Our freedoms are necessarily restricted in lots of ways. You can't kill, rape, steal, slander, cheat etc etc.
This and That
Oh, don't get your heart all a-twitter. Consider that despite the member attempting to bait a moderator into banning him, the moderator, aware of the severity of his post to which so many object, has not taken any action against him.
And in truth, I go easier on the cops when we're not expected grovel for the sake of their egos. Your remark, be it flippant or vicious or whatever, was not something you needed to apologize for, and if the people who join police departments are supposed to receive some extraordinary protection of respect that we should not extend to other groups of people, such as politicians, lawyers, and religious people, they're going to hear just how pathetic and greedy that is.
But yeah, the idea of a LEO not under any official sanction or punishment complaining of abuse of authority?
Quite frankly, the longer he goes on, the more he proves my point.
I mean, come on, if he doesn't like the opinion that cops are dishonest, maybe he should try something a little more honest.
Seriously, we all go through this in some way at some point in our lives. How many millions of people would consider me evil simply for being an American? Frankly, it doesn't bother me because I know why so many people complain about our society.
And as I noted a couple days ago, in a discussion of religion and politics:
You know how discussions can get to that point? When the people who might disagree take reasonable positions. I can tell you exactly why I have such a low view of cops; all we know about our neighbor's argument is that his feelings are hurt.
When it comes to the hurt feelings of LEOs, I'll worry about that when trusting cops is no longer dangerous.
They don't like to talk about how it comes about.
They don't like to talk about how it transmits through the ranks.
They don't like to talk about how it persists.
Instead, they just complain when people criticize the police at all.
And as we have seen, yet again, what the LEO sensitivities aren't able to do is actually be useful on such occasions.
Although, I did want to thank you, personally: I haven't had to ask someone how to apply to be a black man for several years.
Of course, in that stretch I've never gotten an answer, either.
In the end, the police are human beings. That is all the respect they get from me. It's a baseline. You get it if you're Officer Hero, Osama bin Laden, or even a capitalist. Its components include the Dostoyevsky measurement.
The only real, practical solution is to set aside our myths and start purging the corruption and hatred, start holding society's powerful to account for their power.
Once upon a time I might have said that I cannot afford to have cops as friends, as I have a long history as a stoner. But even before we cleared that one up in the Evergreen State, that myth went bust.
My friend's stepfather was, on balance, a reasonably good person. Indeed, where we separate, and where he became dangerous to me was not simply in the fact that he would admit that (nearly accurate paraphrase) "There's not a cop who hasn't or wouldn't perjure himself to keep a definitely guilty suspect from getting off on a technicality". Where he became dangerous to me is in a simple difference of perspective: I do not find this acceptable. He not only found it acceptable, but considered it appropriate.
And it used to be a lot easier to convince oneself that rampant corruption was something that existed somewhere else. Los Angeles. New York. Chicago. New Orleans. Small towns in the middle of racist nowhere.
I live just north of Seattle. I presently have no specific beef with the Snohomish County Sheriff's office, but the rest of our law and justice system seated in Everett is rotten to the core. The Seattle Police Department is out of its mind, and even tried to take down the new mayor in a disciplinary scandal among police leadership. Cops only get fired when, like Birk, the department is against the wall and facing open revolt from the citizens. But no, that guy was still beyond prosecution.
And I don't loathe Reichert as a sheriff. Whatever pebbles or stones he might have added to the wall over time, he tried to do some important, good things before he left. Indeed, it seemed like after he lost the disciplinary action against his deputies, "Dancin' Dave"—a personal friend to the guy whose stepfather I've mentioned—a guy who helped bring in the Green River Killer, was running out of ways to leave the KCSO in better shape than he found it. So he did the obvious and overdue thing; the new policy on marijuana was, "Don't give us a reason ... please?" Sure, it was a tacit please, but his argument was that his deputies had better things to be doing, so, you know, just ... just don't force them to get involved. Don't deal on the streetcorner. Don't get kids high. Don't toke in public. That sort of thing. No more wasting the aircraft on flyovers looking for radiation from the grow lights. No more poring through utility records looking for extraordinary electric consumption. No more stings. Better things to do.
But he would, as long as he wore that badge, always present a danger to me. It is inherent in how the laws are structured and the law enforcement agencies operate.
It's also true, though, that I hold a scorched-earth outlook on the hurt feelings of LEOs. If it's just a few bad seeds, then get rid of them.
One might, then, wonder if there is a reason they have not.
Captain Kremmen said:
Oh, don't get your heart all a-twitter. Consider that despite the member attempting to bait a moderator into banning him, the moderator, aware of the severity of his post to which so many object, has not taken any action against him.
And in truth, I go easier on the cops when we're not expected grovel for the sake of their egos. Your remark, be it flippant or vicious or whatever, was not something you needed to apologize for, and if the people who join police departments are supposed to receive some extraordinary protection of respect that we should not extend to other groups of people, such as politicians, lawyers, and religious people, they're going to hear just how pathetic and greedy that is.
But yeah, the idea of a LEO not under any official sanction or punishment complaining of abuse of authority?
Quite frankly, the longer he goes on, the more he proves my point.
I mean, come on, if he doesn't like the opinion that cops are dishonest, maybe he should try something a little more honest.
Seriously, we all go through this in some way at some point in our lives. How many millions of people would consider me evil simply for being an American? Frankly, it doesn't bother me because I know why so many people complain about our society.
And as I noted a couple days ago, in a discussion of religion and politics:
In the end, it is unfortunate; many good, decent people of faith get stained by these outstanding hatemongers. And that is, to a certain degree, understandable; the constant stimuli coming from the evangelical sector is hateful. To the other, though, I am also aware of a faction among Christians who seem to get it. They don't bother trying to say, "That's not fair to Christians!" because they recognize that the hatred visited upon society has taken that name for itself. They get it, and know the difference between the "Christians" we talk about in large political issues and themselves. Trust is an astoundingly effective communicative aid.
You know how discussions can get to that point? When the people who might disagree take reasonable positions. I can tell you exactly why I have such a low view of cops; all we know about our neighbor's argument is that his feelings are hurt.
When it comes to the hurt feelings of LEOs, I'll worry about that when trusting cops is no longer dangerous.
They don't like to talk about how it comes about.
They don't like to talk about how it transmits through the ranks.
They don't like to talk about how it persists.
Instead, they just complain when people criticize the police at all.
And as we have seen, yet again, what the LEO sensitivities aren't able to do is actually be useful on such occasions.
Although, I did want to thank you, personally: I haven't had to ask someone how to apply to be a black man for several years.
Of course, in that stretch I've never gotten an answer, either.
• • •
Fraggle Rocker said:
In the end, the police are human beings. That is all the respect they get from me. It's a baseline. You get it if you're Officer Hero, Osama bin Laden, or even a capitalist. Its components include the Dostoyevsky measurement.
The only real, practical solution is to set aside our myths and start purging the corruption and hatred, start holding society's powerful to account for their power.
Once upon a time I might have said that I cannot afford to have cops as friends, as I have a long history as a stoner. But even before we cleared that one up in the Evergreen State, that myth went bust.
My friend's stepfather was, on balance, a reasonably good person. Indeed, where we separate, and where he became dangerous to me was not simply in the fact that he would admit that (nearly accurate paraphrase) "There's not a cop who hasn't or wouldn't perjure himself to keep a definitely guilty suspect from getting off on a technicality". Where he became dangerous to me is in a simple difference of perspective: I do not find this acceptable. He not only found it acceptable, but considered it appropriate.
And it used to be a lot easier to convince oneself that rampant corruption was something that existed somewhere else. Los Angeles. New York. Chicago. New Orleans. Small towns in the middle of racist nowhere.
I live just north of Seattle. I presently have no specific beef with the Snohomish County Sheriff's office, but the rest of our law and justice system seated in Everett is rotten to the core. The Seattle Police Department is out of its mind, and even tried to take down the new mayor in a disciplinary scandal among police leadership. Cops only get fired when, like Birk, the department is against the wall and facing open revolt from the citizens. But no, that guy was still beyond prosecution.
And I don't loathe Reichert as a sheriff. Whatever pebbles or stones he might have added to the wall over time, he tried to do some important, good things before he left. Indeed, it seemed like after he lost the disciplinary action against his deputies, "Dancin' Dave"—a personal friend to the guy whose stepfather I've mentioned—a guy who helped bring in the Green River Killer, was running out of ways to leave the KCSO in better shape than he found it. So he did the obvious and overdue thing; the new policy on marijuana was, "Don't give us a reason ... please?" Sure, it was a tacit please, but his argument was that his deputies had better things to be doing, so, you know, just ... just don't force them to get involved. Don't deal on the streetcorner. Don't get kids high. Don't toke in public. That sort of thing. No more wasting the aircraft on flyovers looking for radiation from the grow lights. No more poring through utility records looking for extraordinary electric consumption. No more stings. Better things to do.
But he would, as long as he wore that badge, always present a danger to me. It is inherent in how the laws are structured and the law enforcement agencies operate.
It's also true, though, that I hold a scorched-earth outlook on the hurt feelings of LEOs. If it's just a few bad seeds, then get rid of them.
One might, then, wonder if there is a reason they have not.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
No. Of course many of them are in today's world, but the best laws merely balance the freedom of individuals to do certain things against the freedom of other individuals who will be harmed, or at least inconvenienced, by those things.
The law against theft, for instance, provides two services. #1: it prohibits you from taking away stuff that I worked hard to pay for. But #2, it also prohibits you from thriving without working; requiring you to join the workforce so that everybody's prosperity is increased incrementally.
The same goes for the law against murder. #1: it drastically reduces the probability of my coming home and finding you standing over my wife's dead body with a smoking gun--which would make the entire rest of my life unbearably sad. But #2, because you are very unlikely to kill my wife, or anyone else, in order to avoid a life sentence in prison, I (and everyone else) do not have to divert a significant amount of my time, labor and other resources for the purpose of protecting my wife, myself, and everybody else, from you.
The First Rule Of Civilization is: You must never kill another person unless he voluntarily secedes from civilization first and tries to attack you or do something almost as dire such as burning down your home or poisoning your water supply. If it weren't for this, everyone would have to divert so much of their energy, time and other resources to simply protecting ourselves from each other that the surplus productivity that makes civilization possible would be dissipated and we'd still be living in the Paleolithic Era.
I don't see how laws against murder, theft, kidnapping, rape, etc., decrease the freedom of anyone except the sociopaths who want to do those things.
Sure, we have laws about more mundane things, but they too are about balancing the freedom of individuals against each other's depredations. Should you be allowed to turn your city lot into a pig farm? Sure, it will increase your income a bit. But it will make the 50-200 people who live downwind from you unable to enjoy their homes. This is how zoning laws got started. If you want to be a farmer, go live with the other farmers where you can live with the smell of each other's pig shit.
Laws against discrimination and usury, laws about minimum wage and job discrimination, laws requiring children to attend school, pets to be vaccinated, and entire categories of people from doctors to motor vehicle drivers to be licensed. . . . their purpose is to make us all safer.
In essence, many of these laws simply attempt to stop us from falling into the tragedy of the commons, which reduces everyone's prosperity and happiness.
So now you want two rival governments??? That makes you the most anti-libertarian person I've ever met!
But you did say that the problem with the law is that it restricts freedom. If restricting freedom isn't inherently bad, then why is it "the problem" here?
I think instead of making a claim and demanding that everyone prove you wrong, you actually support it with evidence and argument.
I must be saying that freedom is a good in itself, that should only be restricted if that freedom causes harm that outweighs that freedom.
Do you think that is wrong?
Surely freedom is a good.
Do you disagree?
You are all heart. When you look at your computer screen now, imagine me prostrated before you.
You are like Mahatma Gandhi squared.
Any chances of changing the title of this thread to something less skewed by your pathology?
So all convictions in those states are done without physical evidence or witnesses other than the word of the arresting cops, and none of those cases are appealed, or they are appealed and all of the convictions are upheld? Because at some point the courts would enjoin them not to violate the civil rights of suspects. And, failing that, they would send in the federal marshals and seize control of the process.Tiassa said:
Actually the equal protection clause is one of the weakest grounds a plaintiff can raise in a civil rights proceeding. Evidently you meant this as a metaphor. You probably meant to state this as a due process violation.
What are the cops claiming people did, and why are they bothering with innocent people? Don't they have their hands full chasing real perps?
A judge?
That's incorrect. You're talking obliquely about due process violations which are protected first under habeas corpus. Failing that, Congress passed 42 USC 1983 specifically to protect citizens from official abuse:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Don't confuse the murdering cop with the cop who's writing you a ticket.
No, but generalizing to a stereotype is usually one of the markers of a bigot.
That's absurd. They are empowered by the law, which means they have powers only within the limited scope of their duties. So far you seem to be talking about cops who are acting in their individual capacity (i.e. they were not authorized to trump up charges) who are answerable to the courts when suspects file complaints against them. It wouldn't take a court very long to figure out that something was awry if a pattern of practice emerged from a chain of such complaints. That makes me think no such chain exists, which leads me conclude that you must be exaggerating, unless I've missed some essential fact that substantiates your claims.
So what's the real story here? :bugeye: These facts don't jibe.
They do, of course. If I hurt my foot and I wanted to drive to the hospital, and I could take a nearby car, then I might prefer to do that. But since there are laws against theft, that's a freedom I no longer have. (Even if I had the skill to break into the car.) No one considers that a very important right, so the loss of the right is insignificant compared to the gain of the right of the car owner to be secure in his possessions.
A wider societal example would be a law against air pollution. That might guarantee your right to breathe clean air, but restrict your neighbor's right to heat his house with his woodburning stove.
In a very real sense, every new law that guarantees someone the right to X removes another person's right to do Y. Thus we should be very careful in drafting and implementing new laws, so that we do not take away someone else's rights unnecessarily.
That's not what you "must" me saying. The implication of a sentence such as "The problem with the law is that it restricts freedom" is that restriction of freedom is necessarily a negative.
Red herring. Stay on topic.
Bells
Staff member
Firstly, I don't agree with Tiassa's wording, but I do understand where he is coming from. I don't think you're all shit. But I do think there is a major problem with "LEO's" because, quite simply, the whole thing is just dirty.
Secondly, I think any of us who were involved behind that so called blue wall need to ask ourselves some things..
If we knew and were aware of what was going on and we said nothing and did nothing about it, are we somehow complicit? If you protect and guard their wrong-doings because they are fellow "LEO's" like you and it's a thing of 'got their backs', are you a part of it?
And it's not just "LEO's". Fire and rescue in parts of the US, where corruption and nepotism, to the point where they block anyone who's not 'one of them' from entering the fire department, is the norm are also a part of that culture.
You can't deny that cops who come out and spill the beans and tell the truth about what is going on are usually fired or forced out of their jobs for ratting on their 'brothers'. And that's the culture that is bad with LEO's. It's great in some respects, but terrible in others. And I think those who remain silent and do nothing because they either get some benefit out of it (such as is the case with asset forfeiture) or because they figure they are a part of that 'brotherhood', behind that blue wall and they won't say anything because if they ever need someone to watch their backs, then they just need to turn a blind eye to it all. Or they say nothing because they are afraid.
It's that level of complicity that is troubling.
I'll give you an example:
Police in this suburban town best known for its sprawling outlet mall have hit upon a surefire way to make millions. They sell cocaine.
Undercover detectives and their army of informants lure big-money drug buyers into the city from across the United States, and from as far north as Canada and as far south as Peru. They negotiate the sale of kilos of cocaine in popular family restaurants, then bust the buyers and seize their cash and cars.
Police confiscate millions from these deals, money that fuels huge overtime payments for the undercover officers who conduct the drug stings and cash rewards for the confidential informants who help detectives entice faraway buyers, a six-month Sun Sentinel investigation found.
Police have paid one femme fatale informant more than $800,000 over the past five years for her success in drawing drug dealers into the city, records obtained by the newspaper show.
Undercover officers tempt these distant buyers with special discounts, even offering cocaine on consignment and the keys to cars with hidden compartments for easy transport. In some deals, they’ve provided rides and directions to these strangers to Sunrise.
This being western Broward County, not South Beach, the drama doesn’t unfold against a backdrop of fast boats, thumping nightclubs or Art Deco hotels.
It’s absurdly suburban.
Many of the drug negotiations and busts have taken place at restaurants around the city’s main attraction, Sawgrass Mills mall, including such everyday dining spots as TGI Fridays, Panera Bread and the Don Pan International Bakery.
Why would police bring criminals to town?
Money.
Under long-standing state and federal forfeiture laws, police can seize and keep ill-gotten gains related to criminal activities, such as the money a buyer brings to purchase cocaine and the car driven to the deal.
Sunrise is hauling in three times as much forfeited cash as any other city in Broward and Palm Beach counties, the Sun Sentinel found. Last year, the city raked in $2 million in state and federal forfeiture funds. The year before, in 2011, the figure was twice that — nearly $4 million.
Police generate much of their forfeiture money through reverse stings. The reverse sting, in which the police pose not as buyers, but as suppliers of cocaine, is a legitimate tool used by numerous law enforcement agencies.
“Is it illegal? No,” said Miami attorney Joel DeFabio, who represented a southwest Florida man busted in a Sunrise cocaine sting. “Is it improper? Not under our current law.”
But it is unusual. Other law enforcement agencies don’t consistently bring in suspects from outside their jurisdictions, the Sun Sentinel found.
The newspaper looked at cocaine trafficking arrests by all law enforcement agencies in Broward County over the past five years, and found that Sunrise made three-quarters of the busts involving suspects from other states or countries.
Since 2009, Sunrise has arrested at least 190 people on cocaine trafficking charges: more than any other municipality in the county and nearly twice the number of the only police agency that comes close, Fort Lauderdale. Only seven of those arrested by Sunrise lived in the city.
Undercover detectives and their army of informants lure big-money drug buyers into the city from across the United States, and from as far north as Canada and as far south as Peru. They negotiate the sale of kilos of cocaine in popular family restaurants, then bust the buyers and seize their cash and cars.
Police confiscate millions from these deals, money that fuels huge overtime payments for the undercover officers who conduct the drug stings and cash rewards for the confidential informants who help detectives entice faraway buyers, a six-month Sun Sentinel investigation found.
Police have paid one femme fatale informant more than $800,000 over the past five years for her success in drawing drug dealers into the city, records obtained by the newspaper show.
Undercover officers tempt these distant buyers with special discounts, even offering cocaine on consignment and the keys to cars with hidden compartments for easy transport. In some deals, they’ve provided rides and directions to these strangers to Sunrise.
This being western Broward County, not South Beach, the drama doesn’t unfold against a backdrop of fast boats, thumping nightclubs or Art Deco hotels.
It’s absurdly suburban.
Many of the drug negotiations and busts have taken place at restaurants around the city’s main attraction, Sawgrass Mills mall, including such everyday dining spots as TGI Fridays, Panera Bread and the Don Pan International Bakery.
Why would police bring criminals to town?
Money.
Under long-standing state and federal forfeiture laws, police can seize and keep ill-gotten gains related to criminal activities, such as the money a buyer brings to purchase cocaine and the car driven to the deal.
Sunrise is hauling in three times as much forfeited cash as any other city in Broward and Palm Beach counties, the Sun Sentinel found. Last year, the city raked in $2 million in state and federal forfeiture funds. The year before, in 2011, the figure was twice that — nearly $4 million.
Police generate much of their forfeiture money through reverse stings. The reverse sting, in which the police pose not as buyers, but as suppliers of cocaine, is a legitimate tool used by numerous law enforcement agencies.
“Is it illegal? No,” said Miami attorney Joel DeFabio, who represented a southwest Florida man busted in a Sunrise cocaine sting. “Is it improper? Not under our current law.”
But it is unusual. Other law enforcement agencies don’t consistently bring in suspects from outside their jurisdictions, the Sun Sentinel found.
The newspaper looked at cocaine trafficking arrests by all law enforcement agencies in Broward County over the past five years, and found that Sunrise made three-quarters of the busts involving suspects from other states or countries.
Since 2009, Sunrise has arrested at least 190 people on cocaine trafficking charges: more than any other municipality in the county and nearly twice the number of the only police agency that comes close, Fort Lauderdale. Only seven of those arrested by Sunrise lived in the city.
Most people would find this disturbing.
But this is apparently legal and acceptable. I mean to bring criminals to your area specifically to make money off them?
It's the "tacit acceptance" of what many LEO's do that is the issue. Whether certain officers don't take part in it or not is not really the point. It's the fact that they know it's going on, but say and do nothing and sometimes even facilitate and defend the actions of these officer's that's the main issue with 'the blue wall'.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
How does one grovel except to follow orders strictly as given? We even have daily public police blotters of arrests for all to see and investigate. All of the above other groups you mentioned have less exposure or public criticism. How sacred do you want religion to be?
That's ridiculous. Noting that there are problems "behind the blue wall" is not the same thing as what Tiassa is saying. It's the difference between noting that a disproprtionate amount of drug crimes are committed by African Americans, and calling them all drug dealing pieces of shit.
We've all got our noses bent out of shape over Syne, but this makes two very overtly unacceptable and prejudiced comments by Tiassa in recent weeks. I think a ticket is in order.
The Obvious Question ... Yet Again
Oh, please do pay attention. If you're going to insist on a point that has been addressed twice already—
—I mean, come on, at least try to address the points on record that dispute such inappropriate juxtapositions.
So, answer the question, please. How do I apply for a job as a black man?
Balerion said:
Oh, please do pay attention. If you're going to insist on a point that has been addressed twice already—
(1) Nobody is born a cop.
(2) How do I apply to become black or hispanic? ....
.... Meanwhile, how do I apply to become a Chinaman? (#33)
Although, I did want to thank you, personally: I haven't had to ask someone how to apply to be a black man for several years.
Of course, in that stretch I've never gotten an answer, either. (#64)
(2) How do I apply to become black or hispanic? ....
.... Meanwhile, how do I apply to become a Chinaman? (#33)
• • •
Although, I did want to thank you, personally: I haven't had to ask someone how to apply to be a black man for several years.
Of course, in that stretch I've never gotten an answer, either. (#64)
—I mean, come on, at least try to address the points on record that dispute such inappropriate juxtapositions.
So, answer the question, please. How do I apply for a job as a black man?
Typical red herring. The point stands: You're generalizing a group based on the actions of certain members within that group.
Please support your claim that every cop is deserving of the title "Lying piece of shit."
Bells
Staff member
Did you read all of what I said?
Or did you stop at the first sentence?
There is tacit consent and knowledge, behind that 'blue wall', for what goes on. There always has been.
It's like a secret club.
I know. I have worked within those confines. I am a part of the 'lying piece of shit' that Tiassa is talking about. I'm not defensive about it. It's what went on and continues to go on and people just say nothing, for a variety of reason. In the US, where proceeds of crime is given to police departments, it's probably even worse.
Why aren't LEO's speaking out against this kind of thing?
Instead, it's a wall of silence. They only react when the public finds out and it's so blatant, that they are left with little choice but to react. But officers existing within these environments, why aren't they speaking out? It's that blue wall. And it's terrible.
A few months ago, there was this video posted online, about a police officer who stopped his car and threw a football with a little kid and so much praise about how this was a good police officer and how he could have made a difference in that kid's life. In other words, this officer's actions was deemed such a rare event, that it needed to be made public to try and paint other officers in a good light. What should be the norm is now the exception. And what is now the norm should be the exception. It's back to front.
The force itself is dirty from within. Anyone who enters it and either participates or just ignores it to not rock the boat.. They also become tainted. And that's pretty bad.
As for your comparison with racist stereotyping.. Really Balerion?
You can't tell the difference between being born a certain race and willingly joining an often corrupt law enforcement agency and tacitly accepting said corruption as being part and parcel of your job?
One thing I find amusing/sad is how open they can be about it. If you watch the Fox show Cops, over and over you will see cops interrogating suspects, trying to get them to confess by telling them lines like "Look, I'm trying to help you out here." No, they are not. They are trying to make themselves look better by handing the D.A. a case on a platter. Quite often the people they are interrogating are scum who deserve to have the full penalty of law fall on them; that does not change the fact the the police officers are lying to these suspects when they act as though they are going to "Go easy on them" if the suspect admits to having drugs, etc. Apparently, their attitude is that if you are stupid enough to believe them, that's your problem. Don't talk to police.
Did you read who I wrote that to/ If you're curious, it wasn't directed at you. Could you try to respond to the post I made to you?
That not all cops are a part of. Being silent is not the same as consent, no more than a battered woman is consenting to her abuse when she refuses to press charges against her abuser. There are consequences to those actions that not everyone is willing to risk.
Oh, so one must be "defensive about it" to recognize a generalization? That's flat-out absurd, Bells.
You can't see that stereotyping is bad even when it isn't racist? Really, Bells?
You can't see that condemning an entire group for the actions of certain members within that group is wrong? Really, Bells?
And no, accepting corruption is not part and parcel of your job. Contrary to the fear-mongering campaign that you and Tiassa are engaged in, not all police are corrupt. Not all departments are corrupt. Not all cops know of corruption. Not all cops engage in it. And silence is not endorsement.