Red Mosquito

There are many different types of cop, just as there are many different types of person. But I just don't see why people need to defend cops. Of course, I assume that as cops have the job they do, many of them are good and uncontroversial at what they do. But to be defensive or in denial about the opposite experience is disingenuous to say the least. Cops who do questionable things may or may not be in the minority, but that minority is a significant minority. And you have to question their actions when governments, for example, are pulling the strings; and those governments have an agenda too. It's not a simple cut-and-dry case of people being hard-working and dedicated. Because neither hard work nor dedication precludes the possibility that someone will *legally* use their white privilege to 'get the job done' as they see it. I might be overstating the case, but that's because it is a case which is constantly undermined by anyone in the establishment, by government, and by Conservative *and* neoliberal public.

harmless wrote:There are many different types of cop, just as there are many different types of person. But I just don't see why people need to defend cops. Of course, I assume that as cops have the job they do, many of them are good and uncontroversial at what they do. But to be defensive or in denial about the opposite experience is disingenuous to say the least. Cops who do questionable things may or may not be in the minority, but that minority is a significant minority. And you have to question their actions when governments, for example, are pulling the strings; and those governments have an agenda too. It's not a simple cut-and-dry case of people being hard-working and dedicated. Because neither hard work nor dedication precludes the possibility that someone will *legally* use their white privilege to 'get the job done' as they see it. I might be overstating the case, but that's because it is a case which is constantly undermined by anyone in the establishment, by government, and by Conservative *and* neoliberal public.

I don't really disagree with you, and I absolutely think you have to "question the establishment". What led to my original involvement into this discussion was this comment:

harmless wrote:I think cops are racist a lot of the time, there's nothing unusual about the conjecture or possibility here. They're also ablist, homophobic and misogynist sometimes. Some people have that experience so they air that view.

It seems that your starting point for analyzing any sort of police situation uses this as a baseline. I'm suggesting that you consider shifting your baseline. I think that if you take an objective look at how the job is done--as a whole--and the degree of professionality with which it is performed, you will find that these sort of situations are absolutely not the norm. They are, however, the situations that get all the publicity. Hence the perception issue.

I will say that I've had to work incredibly hard (and I'm still not there, probably) with this very same sort of perceptional issue as it applies to politics. It's pretty easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I finally made a point of speaking to some of these folks (my father included, who has to spend a great deal of time in legislative wranglings with his job), and attempting to understand the unbelievable amount of shit they have to go through to get things done, you begin to see the human side of things.

clavian wrote:

harmless wrote:There are many different types of cop, just as there are many different types of person. But I just don't see why people need to defend cops. Of course, I assume that as cops have the job they do, many of them are good and uncontroversial at what they do. But to be defensive or in denial about the opposite experience is disingenuous to say the least. Cops who do questionable things may or may not be in the minority, but that minority is a significant minority. And you have to question their actions when governments, for example, are pulling the strings; and those governments have an agenda too. It's not a simple cut-and-dry case of people being hard-working and dedicated. Because neither hard work nor dedication precludes the possibility that someone will *legally* use their white privilege to 'get the job done' as they see it. I might be overstating the case, but that's because it is a case which is constantly undermined by anyone in the establishment, by government, and by Conservative *and* neoliberal public.

I don't really disagree with you, and I absolutely think you have to "question the establishment". What led to my original involvement into this discussion was this comment:

harmless wrote:I think cops are racist a lot of the time, there's nothing unusual about the conjecture or possibility here. They're also ablist, homophobic and misogynist sometimes. Some people have that experience so they air that view.

It seems that your starting point for analyzing any sort of police situation uses this as a baseline. I'm suggesting that you consider shifting your baseline. I think that if you take an objective look at how the job is done--as a whole--and the degree of professionality with which it is performed, you will find that these sort of situations are absolutely not the norm. They are, however, the situations that get all the publicity. Hence the perception issue.

I will say that I've had to work incredibly hard (and I'm still not there, probably) with this very same sort of perceptional issue as it applies to politics. It's pretty easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I finally made a point of speaking to some of these folks (my father included, who has to spend a great deal of time in legislative wranglings with his job), and attempting to understand the unbelievable amount of shit they have to go through to get things done, you begin to see the human side of things.

I can't shift my baseline. I am a disabled person and I see the establishment treating us with contempt every day. So no, I'm not shifting my biases. I would ask you to shift yours, but it would appear that was impossible for you to do.

And no, I don't believe these situations get 'all the publicity'. At the moment, the UK are committing disabled rights abuses against the disabled and sick community all the time. There are regular protests up and down the country, and there have been instances of police forcefully attacking disabled protesters. We've had over three years of it. Does the mainstream media cover it? The BBC? Well, hardly. Why? Because most of the media has a vested interest in upholding the Government's propaganda and spin. That's life. Sure, it's life from my point of view, but I reject the idea that it's any less valid. The person who says 'Let's be more "objective" about this' is the most annoying person in the world to me, because he represents the privileged folk who will absolutely refuse to acknowledge their privilege and bias. If you're not affected by racial profiling or prejudiced policy, of course you're going to say "Well we're nice people really". But that's not an argument that needs to be made. Policemen are nice people? No shit! The stories that *need* more air time, to redress the balance of power, are those to do with the mistreatment of minorities. I don't know owe the police, or the government that pulls their strings, a single thing.

clavian wrote:sooner or later we're going to have to acknowledge the fact that crying "RACIST!" over situations involving people of different races is probably doing much more harm than good

exactly

i got bugs wrote:

clavian wrote:sooner or later we're going to have to acknowledge the fact that crying "RACIST!" over situations involving people of different races is probably doing much more harm than good

exactly

Sooner or later? We've been 'acknowledging' that for hundreds of years. This isn't some revelation we have to come to as a society, this is a privileged view we've always been stuck in. But you know what, I'm going to struggle talking about this without getting angry and upset, so have a good day folks.

I think you are kind of missing my point, but that's fine.

In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding. There is no excuse for that, and I've never suggested that any of that sort of shit should be swept under the rug because "most police are nice and hardworking".

And I'm sorry about your situation in the UK. I was not aware that was going on (hell, I didn't even realize you were from the UK). We're clearly having this discussion from very different places.

clavian wrote:I think you are kind of missing my point, but that's fine.

In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed.

I'm just saying that a white policemen shooting a black kid just because he looked 'suspicious' (he was black and wearing a hooded top?) is, to me, one of those abuses. The cop was, imo, relying on a huge amount of assumptions and stereotypes about black kids wondering around the streets. It's my opinion and all I'm doing is questioning whether it's really one that gets a fair hearing.

George Zimmerman wasn't a cop. And you are wildly oversimplifying what happened in this case.

harmless wrote:relying on a huge amount of assumptions and stereotypes

This has pretty much been my point all along. It's a 2-way street.

Cheers

clavian wrote: In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding.

Its a shame that sovereign immunity and aggressive police union involvement means that it only happens in the most egregious of cases.

I'm drunk and I haven't followed this case closely. That means nothing; I still have every right to come at it from this point-of-view, and I see no reason why you should feel the need to question that. Yes I'm simplifying because we are on an Internet message board. But nothing you've said has been incredibly complex either. We have different experiences and biases; neither one of us has been more simplistic. But it's that old thing of hey, I'm arguing for the minority here, obviously I'm the one who's being too simplistic about it, right? And I'm bored of it. Now I'll bow out, because as I've said, this isn't an academic and abstract issue for me.

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote: In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding.

Its a shame that sovereign immunity and aggressive police union involvement means that it only happens in the most egregious of cases.

Are you talking about the US or the situation over in the UK? Is there somewhere I can read about this UK situation? I actually keep somewhat close tabs on the UK news, but I'm not real familiar with what is going on with this disability situation.

clavian wrote:George Zimmerman wasn't a cop. And you are wildly oversimplifying what happened in this case.

harmless wrote:relying on a huge amount of assumptions and stereotypes

This has pretty much been my point all along. It's a 2-way street.

Cheers

No, it's not a two-way street. Because a two-way street, in terms of a conversation, requires equality. And poor, non-white people, do not have the prerequisite equality with privileged white people which a '2-way street' would require.

clavian wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote: In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding.

Its a shame that sovereign immunity and aggressive police union involvement means that it only happens in the most egregious of cases.

Are you talking about the US or the situation over in the UK? Is there somewhere I can read about this UK situation? I actually keep somewhat close tabs on the UK news, but I'm not real familiar with what is going on with this disability situation.

It's not in the news, that's why. The government is Tory-led, and most of our media outlets are Tory-funded. So that explains that, and it's why I'm so adamant about media bias and the protection of the status quo message. That said, I guess you could Google UK 'Welfare Reform' and the widespread protest it has received by disabled and sick campaigners, groups, charities and medical doctors... and more really.

clavian wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote: In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding.

Its a shame that sovereign immunity and aggressive police union involvement means that it only happens in the most egregious of cases.

Are you talking about the US or the situation over in the UK? Is there somewhere I can read about this UK situation? I actually keep somewhat close tabs on the UK news, but I'm not real familiar with what is going on with this disability situation.

I was referring to the US.

I didn't really want to go down that road as it's not directly relevant. But yeah; I often just want to say to people 'Check your biases', that's all. And before you call me irrational and simplistic, make sure I don't just have an experience with which you're totally unfamiliar. Same goes for any minority.

I've been liking the concept of micro-aggression lately, as it speaks to a lot of what I've experienced when trying to put my own views across to an able-bodied audience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote: In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding.

Its a shame that sovereign immunity and aggressive police union involvement means that it only happens in the most egregious of cases.

Are you talking about the US or the situation over in the UK? Is there somewhere I can read about this UK situation? I actually keep somewhat close tabs on the UK news, but I'm not real familiar with what is going on with this disability situation.

I was referring to the US.

I guess I'm unfamiliar with police or law enforcement (departments or individual officers) being granted sovereign immunity. My (limited) understanding of sovereign immunity is that it more or less only applies to the federal government and the individual states. How would that stop someone from suing an officer or department? In fact, I'm pretty sure that happens from time-to-time. I know it happened recently in the city where I live.

As for unions, well, you really won't get much argument from me. That's a critique that can be applied to unions across the board.

My sources said they saw Zimmerman at a local Starbucks. He said he drank his coffee black.

clavian wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

clavian wrote: In cases of actual abuse, I would absolutely agree that those situations need to be addressed. The people that are the root cause of those abuses should be fired, as should the people that do their bidding.

Its a shame that sovereign immunity and aggressive police union involvement means that it only happens in the most egregious of cases.

Are you talking about the US or the situation over in the UK? Is there somewhere I can read about this UK situation? I actually keep somewhat close tabs on the UK news, but I'm not real familiar with what is going on with this disability situation.

I was referring to the US.

I guess I'm unfamiliar with police or law enforcement (departments or individual officers) being granted sovereign immunity. My (limited) understanding of sovereign immunity is that it more or less only applies to the federal government and the individual states. How would that stop someone from suing an officer or department? In fact, I'm pretty sure that happens from time-to-time. I know it happened recently in the city where I live.

As for unions, well, you really won't get much argument from me. That's a critique that can be applied to unions across the board.

Generally, you can only sue the city. Perhaps you can get reimbursed for medical expenses or time lost from the department, but you'll only get damages from the city. Despite multi-million dollar payments, cities seem unwilling or unable to substantially reign in police abuses (see: Oakland, or the greater LA area). I guess there's some sense of justice in making taxpayers pay for the excesses of the government they elect, but its not clear how that translates into actual accountability for the transgressor.