A General Consideration Starting from a Specific Issue
Gremmie said:
What if I said all attorneys were scum, and should be slaughtered? You wouldn't take any offense to that?
The following is a common joke in the United States of America. And I'm pretty sure Bells has heard a version of it in Australia.
"What do you call a hundred attorneys in concrete shoes on the bottom of the Pacific?"
―A good start.
The weird thing about American culture on this count is that we're supposed to presume some lawyers are good, and they're always in the prosecutors' offices. Unless, of course, one is a politician trying to convince Americans that our prosecutors, judges, and juries are incapable of handling terrorism trials. And there are other circumstances in which it is acceptable to presume prosecutors evil; many right-wing conspiracy theories circulating among alleged patriots are even more paranoid about state actors than their long-ignored leftist equivalents. And why is it that the same package of paranoia is so much more acceptable if it's dressed in wishes for patriotic insurgency instead of revolutionary progress?
And like I said, people say a lot worse about law enforcement every day, and rarely do we hear such complaints as you made toward Captain K's glib remark.
Seriously, who the hell is coming for our guns? Is Harry Reid going to go around sucker-punching gun owners while Joe Biden picks their holster and Barack Obama raids the cabinet?
It will be either the police or the armed services, depending on which conspiracy theory one attends.
Setting aside the fact of needing to amend the Constitution in order to take away the guns—and, really, think about what it would take to get that kind of amendment of the Second through Congress and the States, and anyone who wants to push those conspiracy theories can feel free to finally explain that one—there is also the consideration of who's going to do it.
Is there really any question in anyone's mind whether the police or military would actually come after all the guns in the U.S.? No, really, under
what circumstances would these
people in these particular uniforms actually do it?
Enemies foreign and domestic; without amending the Second, nobody can take all the guns away. And paranoid arguments about taking away people's guns as a distraction from a discussion of gun safety and violence in the United States presume that law enforcement and/or the military would be willing to try just because Congress and a President said so.
Please, sir, tell me:
How does it feel to know that so many people believe that you, as a law enforcement officer, would willingly take part in the confiscation of all guns in private hands, simply because Congress passed a bill and the president signed it into law?
This is a valid argument in our political discourse. It is a prominent argument. It's hard to discuss gun safety in the public arena because the counterpoint is that such discussions and obligations are just the beginning of the process to take away all the guns.
How many times have you complained about this?
My complaints with law enforcement are issues that can be fixed. There are others who just presume that the police are so cynically greedy that they would actually take part in the seizure of all guns in private hands; this is a permanent presupposition of an argument that requires law enforcement to be so corrupt.
As to endorsing the wholesale slaughter of the police? Well, that's a problem people seem to have with reading comprehension.
Consider an argument I made in the
gun thread this discussion is splintered from:
You want to tell me the problem is people? Well, guess what? We have no reason to trust the people with guns.
Of course, if we all went and strapped up in order to defend ourselves against these "responsible gun owners", well, see, that's the whole point of the firearm lobby's argument. The whole purpose seems to be to create conditions under which everyone needs a gun.
The problem is this: Gun owners are a risky enough bunch that, under SYG, I have no reason to not stick a knife in the throat of the first guy I find who's packing heat. Gun owners are just that fuckin' dangerous.
It's probably best for all of us, then, that I do not believe in such a world.
Do you understand how that works? I don't want to live in that kind of society. But that's what I get if I accept certain arguments in that public policy debate.
Similarly, from
this discussion:
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.
Do you understand how that works?
There is a logical issue here. There are reasons I do not believe in killing; there are reasons I do not believe in war.
Why was I unable to endorse the violence against the Seattle Police Department in
February, 2011? Because that sort of violence doesn't actually accomplish anything. To the other, though, that was also the month that every police officer in the state of Washington became a mortal threat. The police can
get away with murder.
This presents a practical problem.
Think about that:
Every police officer in the state of Washington is a mortal threat.
Maybe that hurts an individual officer's feelings. But that won't be of any comfort to the dead. There are some things people just can't take back, can't undo.
So if you want to tell me that ninety-nine point nine percent of police officers in a bad shoot wouldn't have shot? If it happens to be your life? And he's going to get away with it?
Birk was only fired because he screwed up badly enough, leaving the department no choice. As it was, Prosecutor Satterberg didn't really help them out any when he decided that shooting someone to death in bad procedure, writing a false report, and actually tampering with the incident scene doesn't really warrant criminal charges.
This is problematic. Every police officer in the state of Washington became a mortal threat that day.
Especially in Seattle.
SPD is a particularly notorious example right now, but apparently it's just their turn; whatever problems the department had before, they've been getting worse since Norm Stamper and WTO, and especially since Gil Kerlikowske, who eventually left to head ONDCP, and is now the Commissioner of CBP. (Okay, I thanked the Obama administration for getting Kerlikowske out of town, adored for the irony his role in the abandonment of the War on Drugs, and think they've found the perfect place for a guy a San Diego police officer once thanked and apologized to me for, because Seattle had gotten him off their backs. And it's true, he's a really nice, good guy. And he knows exactly why I loathe the police, and we rarely talk about it since we were associating as writers. Odd thing is that if California legalizes, he will leave the force; he's got a kid, and while he knows all the problems with marijuana prohibition, he doesn't want to face whatever real threat fills that frontline vacuum. At the time we were talking about this, meth was a likely candidate; and, well, right now it appears to be
heroin, so ... yeah. He's probably making a good call.)
It's like that guy from LAPD we all try to forget. Yes, we know there are certain problems in the force; yes, we know there is a history of bureaucratic malice to suppress reports of those problems, but
really? What the hell is a shooting rampage going to do? Emma Goldman figured this out, but too late. Yes, Henry Clay Frick was, in my opinion, a murderer, but she and Berkman screwed up, with the nearest thing to a silver lining being that they bungled the hit so badly that he lived. 'Twas a bad move, and her later writing reflected an understanding of this. But, really? The Haymarket
Martyrs are so called because they
weren't guilty. They didn't die because they were guilty; they died because they were Anarchists. Damn it, she knew that already. It's not even the fact that she ought to have known she couldn't win. The killing was unjust; you simply don't try to prove the point by assassinating someone.
If the people went to war with the police, there is a reason. But there is no good outcome for that. None. It becomes a useless exercise, literally a feel-good bloodbath.
As I said, it is because I am a pacifist that I do not endorse such things.
In the first place, because, as I said, the Dostoyevsky measure is a fundamental component of my outlook. No matter how dangerous the police get, or how low my esteem for such institutions sinks, it is a fundamental measurement of our society to regard how we treat the most despised.
Naturally, there are far, far worse people in our society than, say, the Seattle Police Department. And I wouldn't see them killed, either.
From the outset, you have been using yourself as a political argument. That's a bit crass. That whimpering outrage at Captain K's remark is absolutely ridiculous. It's offensive. And it was all about
you. And it's true, when I threw down the hammer I didn't need to throw such a heavy one so hard and so low. That was my error. Again, I'm sorry.
Two points:
• When you repeatedly bait a moderator to bust out his cap, it makes your objection appear more personal than principled.
• Superficial arguments framed for the sake of egotism—e.g., "I dedicated my life to my job, and Tiassa calls me a lying piece of shit, that should be killed... Yeah, seems fair."—make your objections appear more personal than principled.
What was it you said? You have three degrees? Then please don't act like you can't read or think any more deeply than that. Please?
To the other, perhaps you can give me some insight, here. Part of what pissed me off was the freaking delicateness of your ego in complaining about Capt. K's remark. Help me, please, understand what separates, say, police, from other groups. I mean come on, if some politician complained about what we were saying about politicians?
Theists? Atheists?
Okay, so ... what separates the police? Or, if nothing specifically, what does that say of the rest?
____________________
Notes:
McNetherney, Casey. "Police officer assaulted near Pike Place Market". SeattlePI. February 21, 2011. SeattlePI.com. April 8, 2014. http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Police-officer-assaulted-near-Pike-Place-Market-1025264.php
Pulkkinen, Levi. "Review: Birk didn’t have cause believe Williams a threat". Seattle 911. February 16, 2011. Blog.SeattlePI.com. April 8, 2014. http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle91...k-didnt-have-cause-believe-williams-a-threat/