It's Time For Conservatives To Stop Defending Police

[Yumyumsuppertime]

If you talk about signing anything in terms of the social contract, then you don't understand the social contract.

I refute its very existence. I refuse to be born into something that steals from me and wages war in my name.

Yeah, you're born into a civilization where sometimes the government does stuff that you don't like with your tax dollars. That's what we call "Living in America". If you want to work to change that, you're fortunate enough to live in one of the nations that actually allows you to do so, though success is not guaranteed. If that's too hard or too uncertain for you, then scrape together the money for an airplane ticket, find a place where the state is either too incompetent to protect you or next to nonexistent, and move there. You'll have to make do without certain amenities--freeways, a wide selection of foods, running water, a fire department, and so on--but a rugged individualist like you should be able to handle that. Until then, your rants about the government are just so much hot air.

[Ifreann]

Ok, rather than respond with a rational claim, instead make incredibly ludicrous statements about an entire group of people that has no facts to go with it.

I suppose if you ever get mugged or vandalized you won't be calling the police.

I dont call the police.

I deal with the person myself.

Or with my german shepherd.

Or with my machete.

Or my rifle.

I am going to spin you a little yarn. Imagine you came home from a brisk walk with your doggie to find that a door or window to your house had been broken, and some property was missing. Maybe you enter the home alone or maybe you go get one of these neighbours for help, either way you search your house and determine that the perpetrator or perpetrators are gone. You have neither the time, nor expertise, nor legal authority that the police could bring to bear in the search for your missing property. So what do you do? You'll never be able to find and retrieve your lost property alone, and your gun toting neighbours couldn't help.

[Fireye]

I'm talking about the latter two cases, amongst others.

The problem is our complete and utter mental disconnect here. You are ignoring facts in those cases.

In reverse order:

You cite a case where, for three hours, a man threatens to kill the police officers, and then ON VIDEO, the man ATTACKS a police officer with a weapon in his hand, and say that the police overreacted. They didn't. (Read the source you provided.)

You cite a case where a known meth dealer, who is known to have armed guards, is letting a family stay in his house during the time when the police have enough evidence ot bring him to trial, and consider an obvious accident - tragic, but an accident nonetheless - and call it police brutality. It's not.

I will give you the chokehold, (not his death itself, pepper spray, which would have been acceptable in the situation, could just as easily triggered an asthma attack) but even that has some mitigating factors, like the 40 negative interactions that the gentleman had already had with the police. Watching the video, the officers don't have their murderin' faces on, but are obviously trying to subdue a man about twice their size (stupidly, sure, and against regulations). Their judgement is not the best, but playing injured in order to gain an escape route is a reasonably common ruse for criminals. I'll await the results of an investigation before I use this incident as my new "Rodney King" yardstick.

Actually, ON VIDEO, the police TOSSED A FLASH BANG GRENADE AT THE OBVIOUSLY INSANE MAN as he was COOPERATING WITH THEM, thereby sending him into a fight or flight response. While I can at least see why they shot him when he pulled out the knives, they were the ones who unnecessarily provoked that action.

Again: intellectual disconnect.

THREE HOURS of threatening to kill police. You're ignoring the facts, again.

I will never see lunging at someone, weapon in hand, as cooperating. The fact that you do frightens me. Immensely.

The police tossed a grenade into a house without knowing WHO was inside, whether it was the person they were looking for, guests, innocents, or Pope Francis stopping by for a chat. That's what you get when you combine a militarized police force with no-knock warrants: Dead innocents.

So a guy with KNOWN ARMED GUARDS, who is a KNOWN METH DEALER should be arrested how? One unarmed uniform walking up to his door? That equals dead cop. (Ok, ok, logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. You're doing the same thing by saying "but... toddler got flashbanged.")

I'm not going to say that the toddler getting a faceful of flashbang isn't a tragic accident. But, newsflash: Accidents and brutality are completely and utterly different things.

Re: the rest of your post: huh? I'm saying I'm considering them innocent until proven guilty in that situation, and from what I saw, I saw people trying to subdue an individual (over zelously, yes, and I AGREED THAT THE HOLD WAS WRONG. Reading comprehension is your friend. Here's a link that can help.).

And, I'm out. I am not returning to this thread. It's obviously a NWA circle-jerk. Maybe some of you who remember the late 80's can explain what I mean by that reference.

[Conglomerate of Iron]

I refute its very existence. I refuse to be born into something that steals from me and wages war in my name.

Yeah, you're born into a civilization where sometimes the government does stuff that you don't like with your tax dollars. That's what we call "Living in America". If you want to work to change that, you're fortunate enough to live in one of the nations that actually allows you to do so, though success is not guaranteed. If that's too hard or too uncertain for you, then scrape together the money for an airplane ticket, find a place where the state is either too incompetent to protect you or next to nonexistent, and move there. You'll have to make do without certain amenities--freeways, a wide selection of foods, running water, a fire department, and so on--but a rugged individualist like you should be able to handle that. Until then, your rants about the government are just so much hot air.

I refuse to argue with your idiocy.

Take your airplane ticket, taxes, laws, and shove it up your ass.

[Ifreann]

Actually, ON VIDEO, the police TOSSED A FLASH BANG GRENADE AT THE OBVIOUSLY INSANE MAN as he was COOPERATING WITH THEM, thereby sending him into a fight or flight response. While I can at least see why they shot him when he pulled out the knives, they were the ones who unnecessarily provoked that action.

Again: intellectual disconnect.

THREE HOURS of threatening to kill police. You're ignoring the facts, again.

I will never see lunging at someone, weapon in hand, as cooperating. The fact that you do frightens me. Immensely.

The police tossed a grenade into a house without knowing WHO was inside, whether it was the person they were looking for, guests, innocents, or Pope Francis stopping by for a chat. That's what you get when you combine a militarized police force with no-knock warrants: Dead innocents.

So a guy with KNOWN ARMED GUARDS, who is a KNOWN METH DEALER should be arrested how? One unarmed uniform walking up to his door? That equals dead cop. (Ok, ok, logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. You're doing the same thing by saying "but... toddler got flashbanged.")

I'm not going to say that the toddler getting a faceful of flashbang isn't a tragic accident. But, newsflash: Accidents and brutality are completely and utterly different things.

Re: the rest of your post: huh? I'm saying I'm considering them innocent until proven guilty in that situation, and from what I saw, I saw people trying to subdue an individual (over zelously, yes, and I AGREED THAT THE HOLD WAS WRONG. Reading comprehension is your friend. Here's a link that can help.).

And, I'm out. I am not returning to this thread. It's obviously a NWA circle-jerk. Maybe some of you who remember the late 80's can explain what I mean by that reference.

I didn't think the Niggaz Wit Attitudes were big on conservative political philosophy.

[Vamtrl]

We need to huff and puff and tear down the pigs blue walls.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Actually, ON VIDEO, the police TOSSED A FLASH BANG GRENADE AT THE OBVIOUSLY INSANE MAN as he was COOPERATING WITH THEM, thereby sending him into a fight or flight response. While I can at least see why they shot him when he pulled out the knives, they were the ones who unnecessarily provoked that action.

Again: intellectual disconnect.

THREE HOURS of threatening to kill police. You're ignoring the facts, again.

I will never see lunging at someone, weapon in hand, as cooperating. The fact that you do frightens me. Immensely.

The police tossed a grenade into a house without knowing WHO was inside, whether it was the person they were looking for, guests, innocents, or Pope Francis stopping by for a chat. That's what you get when you combine a militarized police force with no-knock warrants: Dead innocents.

So a guy with KNOWN ARMED GUARDS, who is a KNOWN METH DEALER should be arrested how? One unarmed uniform walking up to his door? That equals dead cop. (Ok, ok, logical fallacy of appeal to emotion. You're doing the same thing by saying "but... toddler got flashbanged.")

I'm not going to say that the toddler getting a faceful of flashbang isn't a tragic accident. But, newsflash: Accidents and brutality are completely and utterly different things.

Re: the rest of your post: huh? I'm saying I'm considering them innocent until proven guilty in that situation, and from what I saw, I saw people trying to subdue an individual (over zelously, yes, and I AGREED THAT THE HOLD WAS WRONG. Reading comprehension is your friend. Here's a link that can help.).

And, I'm out. I am not returning to this thread. It's obviously a NWA circle-jerk. Maybe some of you who remember the late 80's can explain what I mean by that reference.

If the police obviously felt threatened during those three hours, then they would have taken him down during those three hours, and not during the time that he was actively cooperating with their instructions. He was cooperating before the flash-bang went off, and took out the knives for self defense after he was disoriented by the flash bang. You're hardly one to accuse others of intellectual dishonesty.

The "accident" could have been prevented through ensuring that the drug dealer was at home before entering the house to make an arrest. That was sloppy police work, and the tragedy was a preventable one. That's not an appeal to emotion. That's criticism of supposed professionals so eager to make a big bust that they cut corners in their prep work.

EDIT: Yes, I'm familiar with NWA, and I know that you're likely referring to this work. That's an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate interpretation of my argument, and it's frankly offensive to characterize it as such. I know that you claim to have left this thread, but if you change your mind and happen to read this, I defy you to find one single post of mine in which I characterize the police as a whole in negative terms. I understand and respect the need for police, and generally admire the work that they do. My issue lies with those who dishonor the badge through brutality, abuse, and corruption, and with those who claim to love the Constitution but reflexively defend those who violate it.

[The Re-Frisivisiaing]

I think "Gang" or "Militia" or "Bunch of armed thugs" would be more appropriate.

What is the government than a bunch of armed thugs?

Don't say social contract, because I ddidn't sign shit.

I was going to go with "elected".

You sure did sign shit, you do every day.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

We need to huff and puff and tear down the pigs blue walls.

Referring to the police as a whole as "pigs" isn't constructive, and adds nothing to the discussion. I do agree that the code of silence among officers is an issue that needs to be addressed.

[Herskerstad]

Yup, that limited and poorly formulated opinion piece is sure going to stop conservatives to be more staunch defenders of the police and general law departments.

One has to be really twig-necked to somehow have their view changed by that article. Yes police are entrusted with power, yes some individual police peforms some pretty shitty deeds and should be prosecuted, yes at times increased survailance can be justified as a policy, but in certain regions plauged by never ending crime? Like Chicago and Baltimore? They need more power, not less, and a strategy to erradicate said crime, even if it goes into a geopolitical level.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Yup, that limited and poorly formulated opinion piece is sure going to stop conservatives to be more staunch defenders of the police and general law departments.

One has to be really twig-necked to somehow have their view changed by that article. Yes police are entrusted with power, yes some individual police peforms some pretty shitty deeds and should be prosecuted, yes at times increased survailance can be justified as a policy, but in certain regions plauged by never ending crime? Like Chicago and Baltimore? They need more power, not less, and a strategy to erradicate said crime, even if it goes into a geopolitical level.

That's fine, but the article was not addressing the line between assertive policing and actual Constitutional violations, which you seem to be ignoring in your response to it.

[Cyrisnia]

Yeah, you're born into a civilization where sometimes the government does stuff that you don't like with your tax dollars. That's what we call "Living in America". If you want to work to change that, you're fortunate enough to live in one of the nations that actually allows you to do so, though success is not guaranteed. If that's too hard or too uncertain for you, then scrape together the money for an airplane ticket, find a place where the state is either too incompetent to protect you or next to nonexistent, and move there. You'll have to make do without certain amenities--freeways, a wide selection of foods, running water, a fire department, and so on--but a rugged individualist like you should be able to handle that. Until then, your rants about the government are just so much hot air.

I refuse to argue with your idiocy.

Take your airplane ticket, taxes, laws, and shove it up your ass.

The fucks gotten into you?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I refuse to argue with your idiocy.

Take your airplane ticket, taxes, laws, and shove it up your ass.

The fucks gotten into you?

It's already been reported. Just let the moderators deal with it from here. If you engage, you'll just run the risk of escalating the conflict.

[Cyrisnia]

The fucks gotten into you?

It's already been reported. Just let the moderators deal with it from here. If you engage, you'll just run the risk of escalating the conflict.

Sorry, I will.

Actually, not sure if this has been added here or not yet, my father is a person who is addicted to FOX News. A few days ago, they had the family of the victims interviewed, a man and a woman. They seemed quite...vengeful.

[Trotskylvania]

Ok, rather than respond with a rational claim, instead make incredibly ludicrous statements about an entire group of people that has no facts to go with it.

I suppose if you ever get mugged or vandalized you won't be calling the police.

I dont call the police.

I deal with the person myself.

Or with my german shepherd.

Or with my machete.

Or my rifle.

Oh look, another internet tough guy

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I dont call the police.

I deal with the person myself.

Or with my german shepherd.

Or with my machete.

Or my rifle.

Oh look, another internet tough guy

When it comes to attracting that attitude, threads like this can be like shit to flies. I do wish that I'd thought of that before posting it.

[Andarro]

Or at least that's the title of an essay in National Review by A.J. Delgado, who calls into question much of the right's seemingly knee-jerk defense of police officers. Without denying that individual law enforcement officials do stellar and brave work, or denying the need for a police force, she points out what could be seen as an inherent contradiction in conservative philosophy and the tendency of conservatives to stand solely on the side of representatives of the law regardless of the facts of the case. In doing so, she touches on many of the stories we've discussed on this forum over the past few months.

A sample:

Imagine if I were to tell you there is a large group of government employees, with generous salaries and ridiculously cushy retirement pensions covered by the taxpayer, who enjoy incredible job security and are rarely held accountable even for activities that would almost certainly earn the rest of us prison time. When there is proven misconduct, these government employees are merely reassigned and are rarely dismissed. The bill for any legal settlements concerning their errors? It, too, is covered by the taxpayers. Their unions are among the strongest in the country.

No, I’m not talking about public-school teachers.

I’m talking about the police.

We conservatives recoil at the former; yet routinely defend the latter — even though, unlike teachers, police officers enjoy an utter monopoly on force and can ruin — or end — one’s life in a millisecond.

For decades, conservatives have served as stalwart defenders of police forces. There have been many good reasons for this, including long memories of the post-countercultural crime wave that devastated, and in some cases destroyed, many American cities; conservatives’ penchant for law and order; and Americans’ widely shared disdain for the cops’ usual opponents. (“Dirty hippies being arrested? Good!” is not an uncommon sentiment.) Although tough-on-crime appeals have never been limited to conservative politicians or voters, conservatives instinctively (and, it turned out, correctly) understood that the way to reduce crime is to have more cops making more arrests, not more sociologists identifying more root causes. Conservatives are rightly proud to have supported police officers doing their jobs at times when progressives were on the other side.

But it’s time for conservatives’ unconditional love affair with the police to end.

Let’s get the obligatory disclaimer out of the way: Yes, many police officers do heroic works and, yes, many are upstanding individuals who serve the community bravely and capably.

But respecting good police work means being willing to speak out against civil-liberties-breaking thugs who shrug their shoulders after brutalizing citizens.

On Thursday in Staten Island, an asthmatic 43-year-old father of six, Eric Garner, died after a group of policemen descended on him, placing him in a chokehold while attempting to arrest him for allegedly selling cigarettes. A bystander managed to capture video in which Garner clearly cries out, “I can’t breathe!” Even after releasing the chokehold (chokeholds, incidentally, are prohibited by NYPD protocol), the same officer then proceeds to shove and hold Garner’s face against the ground, applying his body weight and pressure on Garner, ignoring Garner’s pleas that he cannot breathe. Worse yet, new video shows at least eight officers standing around Garner’s lifeless, unconscious body.

Who can defend this?

And police-department Internal Affairs divisions are nearly as concerning as the cops themselves. Last week, a Miami police officer witnessed a car driving at high speeds in a pedestrian area. When he pulled the car over, the indignant driver stormed out. “Don’t you know the [expletive] I am?” the driver barked. It turns out that the driver was a police lieutenant within . . . Internal Affairs. The department in charge of ensuring proper police behavior consists of gents like this, whose first response is to assume that cops, like members of Congress, are above the law. What happened to the lieutenant? He has been transferred to “Special Investigations,” which, as a local NBC reporter points out, is more a promotion than a punishment.

You can find the entire essay here. For those who don't care to read the whole thing, here's the TL;DR: As people who value the rights of the individual over the rights of the state to control the individual, it seems ludicrous to automatically defend law enforcement officers in the face of convincing evidence that they have violated the constitutional rights of those who they are supposed to be protecting. Fourth amendment violations, police abuse resulting in injury and death, and other abuses of power are violations of the rights of the individual at the hands of agents of the state, and conservatives should constantly be on the lookout for overreach by the state, defending individual liberties against overzealous or otherwise inappropriate actions.

It's an interesting take, I believe, and one that actually makes some sense to me even as a leftist. However, I'm curious to know what conservatives on this site think of the article...not that the thread is limited to their input, of course.

I find it much easier to establish my default position as being 'I trust no one in a position of authority and trust'; taking this position, these abuses of power do not shock me, for I pretty much expect them to take place.

As for the people who actually just do their jobs well they are a pleasant surprise and merely the exception but not the rule.

[Andarro]

I'm talking about the latter two cases, amongst others.

The problem is our complete and utter mental disconnect here. You are ignoring facts in those cases.

In reverse order:

You cite a case where, for three hours, a man threatens to kill the police officers, and then ON VIDEO, the man ATTACKS a police officer with a weapon in his hand, and say that the police overreacted. They didn't. (Read the source you provided.)

You cite a case where a known meth dealer, who is known to have armed guards, is letting a family stay in his house during the time when the police have enough evidence ot bring him to trial, and consider an obvious accident - tragic, but an accident nonetheless - and call it police brutality. It's not.

I will give you the chokehold, (not his death itself, pepper spray, which would have been acceptable in the situation, could just as easily triggered an asthma attack) but even that has some mitigating factors, like the 40 negative interactions that the gentleman had already had with the police. Watching the video, the officers don't have their murderin' faces on, but are obviously trying to subdue a man about twice their size (stupidly, sure, and against regulations). Their judgement is not the best, but playing injured in order to gain an escape route is a reasonably common ruse for criminals. I'll await the results of an investigation before I use this incident as my new "Rodney King" yardstick.

Actually, ON VIDEO, the police TOSSED A FLASH BANG GRENADE AT THE OBVIOUSLY INSANE MAN as he was COOPERATING WITH THEM, thereby sending him into a fight or flight response. While I can at least see why they shot him when he pulled out the knives, they were the ones who unnecessarily provoked that action.

The police tossed a grenade into a house without knowing WHO was inside, whether it was the person they were looking for, guests, innocents, or Pope Francis stopping by for a chat. That's what you get when you combine a militarized police force with no-knock warrants: Dead innocents.

I don't care if they had their "murderin' faces" on or not. They hassled a man for an infraction, then, instead of simply writing him a ticket, they decided to detain and search him for no obvious reason, then placed him in an illegal hold that they knew ran the risk of cutting off his air supply (which is ESPECIALLY dangerous with obese people), then continued to restrain him in a manner that caused him to not be able to breathe despite constant comments on his part that this was what was happening. They didn't need to search him in the first place, they used an illegal hold, and when he stated that he was unable to breathe, they ignored his pleas despite suffocation being a known danger of the methods that they were using.

By the way, the terms that you've been using to defend these officers are the exact same ones that were being used to defend the officers in the Rodney King case, so it's interesting that you'd use that as the case by which you're measuring this one. It's the exact sort of knee-jerk defense of the police being referred to in the article.

You handled that pretty well, and I agree with your position.

I would also like to point out in a more sensible manner, that the rhetoric you just responded to is the same kind of rhetoric that makes the changes you suggested to conglomerate of iron, a daunting if not impossible task.

[Reploid Productions]

I refuse to argue with your idiocy.

Take your airplane ticket, taxes, laws, and shove it up your ass.

While my colleague seems to have already given you a warning for flaming elsewhere, given this seems to be becoming a bit of a habit, we're going to double-down on the *** warning for flaming ***, and I'll be appending a note recommending several days of mod-enforced vacation from the forums if this manner of conduct continues. I suggest before you resume posting, that you spend some time reviewing the site rules, as moderation takes a very dim view of this sort of behavior.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Greed and Death]

But they make people who vote in ways I disapprove of into nonvoting felons.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

If you talk about signing anything in terms of the social contract, then you don't understand the social contract.

I refute its very existence. I refuse to be born into something that steals from me and wages war in my name.

Paying taxes isn't stealing.

Waging war is something every government does.

[Elemental North]

I must agree with the article, and the OP.

[Xsyne]

But they make people who vote in ways I disapprove of into nonvoting felons.

I love you.

[SaintB]

I very much agree with the article in the OP on its main point. We can not and should not defend the actions of law enforcement officers and forces who blatantly disregard their duty to protect and serve the populace to serve thier own agendas. We should not tolerate or excuse the use of exessive violence and force. We should never permit the violent thugs who hide among their ranks to get away with abusing their power. We should still respect the men and women who uphold the laws of their nations, states, and localities and recognize that most of them are good and decent people with a sense of responsibility however we also need to be as vigilant against the abuse of their powers and responsibilities as they are in defense of us; they are only human after all and power corrupts.

[Jamjai]

they shoot first, ask questions later