Feeling Conflicted, cop assualts civilian and I'm not outraged

[Citizen]

The Fed's need to get involved in these incidents.

The feds are too busy violating people's rights themselves.

The only time they'll do anything is if there is lots of noise calling for them to get involved and it would make them look good to get involved.

Note: that might be a bit pessimistic and exaggerated, but I'll bet its not far off.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

He's right, it is a generalization. What I've realized is that they're playing something very similar to the race card. What they're trying to imply, as a form of ad hominem attack designed to discredit the arguer, is that generalization must mean the person is speaking about all cops, which must mean they're bigoted, which must mean their opinion is merely a product of prejudice.

But it doesn't work that way. There's nothing wrong with generalizations in and of themselves. They may be right, and they may be wrong. The only time a generalization becomes prima facie invalid is when it is phrased in such a way as to apply to all members of a group.

Let's consider a few examples, shall we?

Generalizations without merit:

• Black people are criminals.

• Southern conservatives are racist, xenophobic KKK members.

• It is always cold when it is rainy.

• Gun owners are law-abiding.

• Cops are evil.


Generalizations which do not purport to apply to every member of the group, and which may have merit:

• Black folks commit more violent crimes than while folks.

• Most conservatives oppose gun control.

• It is generally chilly when it rains.

• The average gun owner is law-abiding.

• The average cop will cover for the "bad apples" in their ranks.

I agree it is a generalization and why I left it out of my reply. Good post. In a rant that became sort of an essay/op-ed (There is no bad apple) I stated whether we like it or not stereotypes exist, e.g. all engineers I know are type A personalities, I wouldn't want someone without attention to detail engineering a bridge.

To me their argument of generalizing "gun owner" and generalizing "cops" in the way they are doing it does not equate.

Cops voluntarily, sign up to join a group of government minions in using force upon civilians, they are supposed to be constitutionally restricted, this system is known to have these problems, these apples choose to be part of the barrel.

Gun owners are individuals exercising a fundamental right, who have no connection with other "gun owners" any more than one person with fingers has any association than another person with fingers.

I can and do separate my feelings for individual cops over the whole group or system. I know a few good cops. I know even more ex cops who are willing to expose the prevailing attitude with in those who are still in the system.

That being said the cop in the OP, well.....fits the generalization/stereotype....

 

[Freedom1Man]

But what is being bemoaned is not that the system is bad/broken/corrupt. It is comments that lump all cops together in generalizations about them. THAT is the same thing as generalizing to all gun owner because a few do bad things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Why does it seem like most cops who do the right thing, by reporting the officers who are doing wrong, get fired? The police unions (sic) seems to stand up for the bad ones. Those cops who do wrong seem to get paid vacations and other perks.

The government wants to punish all gun owners even though, the average (good) gun owners will put a stop to the illegal actions of a bad gun owner (eg armed robbery) when we encounter it.

It is a generalization based on experiences.

 

[MAC702]

Why does it seem like most cops who do the right thing, by reporting the officers who are doing wrong, get fired? The police unions (sic) seems to stand up for the bad ones. Those cops who do wrong seem to get paid vacations and other perks...

Isn't union leadership elected? So if majority rules...

 

[FireStar M40]

The Problem Is...

Eye 95 said in part..

There are folks here who routinely do the general cop-bashing stuff. Them, I report--

When you're telling the truth and stating facts about (who I like to call), "Badge Bully" cops, then it isn't cop-bashing!! Of course there are some here who think "Cops Can Do NO Wrong", so we know how that goes... don't we?

FireStar M40

 

[OC for ME]

<snip> The same thing is constant between the cop that acts unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally and the citizen (gun owner) who kills or robs someone: both have violated an individual's natural (Locke) or God-given (Hobbes) rights. <snip>

I find it reprehensible that you do not attach "unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally" to gun owners, as you do for cops. And you do not equate "who kills or robs someone" to cops as you do for gun owners.

Generalizations are appropriate where cops are concerned. What is not appropriate is assigning unlawful attributes to all cops because 'X' number of cops act unlawfully while in the performance of their duties.

All citizens break the law. All cops break the law. There is no avoiding breaking the law. What we must strive for is citizens and cops not breaking the same law twice or more after being notified that they have broken the law. Learning to follow the law "the next time" is of benefit to all of the citizenry.

BTW, cop unions hold a different view.

 

[palerider116]

I find it reprehensible that you do not attach "unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally" to gun owners, as you do for cops. And you do not equate "who kills or robs someone" to cops as you do for gun owners.

Generalizations are appropriate where cops are concerned. What is not appropriate is assigning unlawful attributes to all cops because 'X' number of cops act unlawfully while in the performance of their duties.

All citizens break the law. All cops break the law. There is no avoiding breaking the law. What we must strive for is citizens and cops not breaking the same law twice or more after being notified that they have broken the law. Learning to follow the law "the next time" is of benefit to all of the citizenry.

BTW, cop unions hold a different view.

A bit dramatic with the reprehensible declaration...

Both can be attached if it makes you feel better. I was specifically referring to officers in the line of duty acting unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally. A citizen is not acting within the scope of duty or by the authority of a government office. That is specifically why I parsed it the way I did. That's all and not for untoward reasons.

Criminal intent along with ability and opportunity create a criminal act. The law should be administered in a pure spirit. Perfect observance is a daunting task.

Fair treatment for all. Equal treatment before the law.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Maybe "good cops" outnumber "bad cops" today, but I doubt it'll last long. Why? Well, I've recently come to realize that "good cops" generate less revenue than "bad cops", and we all know how much the government likes money...

 

[OC for ME]

A bit dramatic with the reprehensible declaration...

Both can be attached if it makes you feel better. I was specifically referring to officers in the line of duty acting unconstitutionally or otherwise illegally. A citizen is not acting within the scope of duty or by the authority of a government office. That is specifically why I parsed it the way I did. That's all and not for untoward reasons.

Criminal intent along with ability and opportunity create a criminal act. The law should be administered in a pure spirit. Perfect observance is a daunting task.

Fair treatment for all. Equal treatment before the law.

A cop acting unlawfully while on duty is acting unlawfully, no different than a citizen acting unlawfully. The continued segregation of consequences between cops and civilians who violate the law, as you have done, will not foster the equal treatment before the law that you advocate for. Words mean things.

 

[Freedom1Man]

A cop acting unlawfully while on duty is acting unlawfully, no different than a citizen acting unlawfully. The continued segregation of consequences between cops and civilians who violate the law, as you have done, will not foster the equal treatment before the law that you advocate for. Words mean things.

Darn skippy about that. +1

 

[HP995]

OC for ME: A cop acting unlawfully while on duty is acting unlawfully, no different than a citizen acting unlawfully. The continued segregation of consequences between cops and civilians who violate the law, as you have done, will not foster the equal treatment before the law that you advocate for. Words mean things.

Freedom1Man: Darn skippy about that. +1

Well said. Too many double standards and standard procedures.

 

[palerider116]

A cop acting unlawfully while on duty is acting unlawfully, no different than a citizen acting unlawfully. The continued segregation of consequences between cops and civilians who violate the law, as you have done, will not foster the equal treatment before the law that you advocate for. Words mean things.

Words mean things? That is extremely profound.

If you think the cop who breaks the law is equal to the citizen who breaks the law, that is your opinion. The penalty should be harsher for those who abuse their powers and do illegal actions under the color of law. The willful assumption of more responsibility and certain powers puts the greater burden on the officer. So yes, crime is crime in the broadest sense, but there are aggravating factors such as voluntarily assumed responsibility, public trust, and the duty to uphold that which is right.

Assumed responsibility means greater accountability.

 

[marshaul]

If you think the cop who breaks the law is equal to the citizen who breaks the law, that is your opinion. The penalty should be harsher for those who abuse their powers and do illegal actions under the color of law. The willful assumption of more responsibility and certain powers puts the greater burden on the officer. So yes, crime is crime in the broadest sense, but there are aggravating factors such as voluntarily assumed responsibility, public trust, and the duty to uphold that which is right.

Assumed responsibility means greater accountability.

I like this post very much, but I believe that the confusion here is due to the disconnect between this ideal and the reality of the system today.

 

[Citizen]

I like this post very much, but I believe that the confusion here is due to the disconnect between this ideal and the reality of the system today.

I wonder. Is a crime committed by a cop really any more harmful than a crime committed by a citizen? Does a cop need any more deterrent than a citizen? Will deterrence work any better on a cop than a citizen?

Off the cuff, the only thing I could say is that the cop should/would also be chargeable for violating his oath of office as a separate offense. But, when I think about it, that's all I can come up with; and, that would cover the assumed-responsibility/public trust thing. Maybe add in something for the citizen victim being unable to fight back/defend himself the way he could against a citizen criminal if its an element of the offense. For example, if a cop burglarizes an unoccupied home, the victim isn't there to defend himself. But, if a cop assaults someone, most of the time the victim dares not fight back.

Hmmm. Food for thought.

 

[palerider116]

Redacted

 

[MAC702]

I wonder. Is a crime committed by a cop really any more harmful than a crime committed by a citizen?...

Off the cuff, the only thing I could say is that the cop should/would also be chargeable for violating his oath of office as a separate offense. But, when I think about it, that's all I can come up with; and, that would cover the assumed-responsibility/public trust thing. ...

Yes, a cop in uniform is the perceived authority of the state at all times by the citizenry. If a cop purposely uses that authority wrongly, there should be a greater violation than just his "oath of office." What is the penalty for violating his "oath of office?"

 

[Citizen]

Yes, a cop in uniform is the perceived authority of the state at all times by the citizenry. If a cop purposely uses that authority wrongly, there should be a greater violation than just his "oath of office." What is the penalty for violating his "oath of office?"

I didn't say there was a penalty for violating oath of office.

I disagree that an offense is greater because a cop done it. The harm caused the victim is the harm caused the victim. The mere fact of being a cop doesn't make the bone more broken. Doctors don't base the number of stitches on whether it was caused by a cop. An illegally seized firearm does not increase in value merely because the taker wore a government costume. The offense is not, cannot be greater.

Its the violation of the public trust that adds to the sting. So, instead of conflating the two, just single out the part that adds to the sting--the violation of the oath.

I'm sure there's some way to make it equitable. Maybe make several classes of oath violation that reflect the severity of the particular oath violation. For example, misdemeanor assault--add 30 days to the cop's jail time for oath violation/betrayal of public trust. Non-violent felony--add one year to his sentence. Violent felony--add two years.

Hell, a great place to start would be just start charging cops for criminal offenses in the first place, instead of having to go to federal court for rights violations. Make an illegal detention an assault or whatever the common law offense really is. Handcuff a guy without RAS = assault and battery. Coming onto somebody's curtilage without a warrant or warrant exception becomes trespass except unless its for a consensual encounter/knock-and-talk; remaining after being told to leave, definitely a trespass. That alone would be a huge improvement, never mind the oath-breaking angle.

 

[marshaul]

The problem with your argument, Citizen, is that the same act may represent greater harm when accomplished by someone acting under the color of law.

For instance, a victim of "regular" theft may simply chalk it up to bad luck and move on, whereas a person who is victim of illegal property seizure at the hands of the police may literally feel their world coming apart as they realize that their lifelong assumptions were false, and they now find themselves at the mercy of an entity so large and powerful as to be effectively unstoppable.

To put it another way, when a criminal seizes your $100 property, you're out $100. When a cop does it, you've just been raped.

This is confirmed by the reactions of the many such victims, who find otherwise "minor" crimes committed by police to be life-changing events.

 

[Citizen]

The problem with your argument, Citizen, is that the same act may represent greater harm when accomplished by someone acting under the color of law.

For instance, a victim of "regular" theft may simply chalk it up to bad luck and move on, whereas a person who is victim of illegal property seizure at the hands of the police may literally feel their world coming apart as they realize that their lifelong assumptions were false, and they now find themselves at the mercy of an entity so large and powerful as to be effectively unstoppable.

To put it another way, when a criminal seizes your $100 property, you're out $100. When a cop does it, you've just been raped.

This is confirmed by the reactions of the many such victims, who find otherwise "minor" crimes committed by police to be life-changing events.

I see your point, but that's still just the betrayal of public trust. The victim had the idea that cops protect and serve or whatever and placed trust/reliance on that. And, then his world came apart when he discovered that wasn't entirely true. That is the reaction to a betrayal of trust. Its just a matter of taking the term public trust from an abstract public to a concrete individual. Insofar as the public is made up of individuals, it makes total sense that public trust would have to include the individual who is violated. So, we just add his individual distress to the outrage of the general public who did not personally suffer a loss yet were angered that unjustness was perpetrated aka they were betrayed. Its just a personalized angle on betrayal of public trust.

So, criminalize the betrayal.


Also, I think you're treading into dangerous territory, making an offense worse based on who did it. You understand you also open the door to making cab drivers pay more for getting snapped by a red-light camera, etc.

 

[marshaul]

Also, I think you're treading into dangerous territory, making an offense worse based on who did it. You understand you also open the door to making cab drivers pay more for getting snapped by a red-light camera, etc.

I didn't "make the offense worse" because of "who did it", the trappings of power make the offense worse in a very real way.