Why Cops Are the Way They Are

Recently, a group of cops were fired/suspended for dumping a quadriplegic out of his wheelchair in a jail holding area. When an officer ordered the suspect to stand up, he quite correctly informed them that he couldn't since he was paralizyed from the waist down...so the officer upended the wheelchair and dumped him on the floor, later explaining that she(!) didn't believe he was really paralyzed. Another officer elsewhere is suspended and possibly about to be fired for grossly overstepping his authority with a couple of kids and their skateboards. Yet another in a different city is being investigated for "taking down" a non-resisting woman so hard that she broke several bones in her face on the concrete.

In all these cases and a myriad more, the cops' reaction is embarassment...that they got caught. Outrage...that someone actually complained, and anger that people are actually paying attention to the complaint. And stonewalling...determined refusal to discuss an incident that is "under investigation".

I caught a comment the other day that expressed a dismayed inquiry as to how we ever got to this point, where "our" cops are obviously so out of control that the rights and privileges of citizenship in America are now not just ignored, but openly disavowed by those whose job, supposedly, is to "keep the peace" and set an example of civilized conduct for the rest of us.

It's really quite simple, and inevitable, and will not stop until the cops themselves are disbanded and their organizations completely rebuilt. Don't hold your breath waiting for that!

What we're looking at is a rather striking example of Jerry Pournelle's "Iron Law of Bureaucracy" in action. To wit: Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. (Jerry Pournelle at "Chaos Manor")

And you were wondering why "police procedure" so frequently seems to allow, if not compel, activities that would seem to be illegal on their face? Like slamming 86-year-old ladies to the ground for handcuffing in such a manner as to dislocate shoulder joints? The claim later, of course, is that since procedure was followed, no wrongdoing by anyone in uniform ocurred.

To the rest of us, it seems obvious that when a stereotypical "little old lady", weighing about as much as a large teddy bear and just about as strong, winds up having her shoulder dislocated in the process of getting her handcuffed so that she can't attack and seriously injure a six foot, 230 pound policeman, somebody has committed a serious "wrongdoing". That's because we simply don't have the correct viewpoint.

To the organization (the police department), whatever is good for the organization is good, period. Whatever is bad for the organization is bad, period. A "little old lady", or a child or a cripple or an obviously injured person looks like an obvious "non-threat". A significant number of police officers, however, have wound up getting hurt or, in a few cases, actually killed by those who looked "non-threatening", and that was "bad"...so we'll make a rule that we just cuff 'em all, using whatever force and technique we think necessary so as to avoid having anything like that happen to "one of us"...ever...and that is "good".

Of course there are "good" cops out there, the ones that seem to be operating according to the "old rules" and are convinced that they are part of the "thin blue line" that protects the majority of us from the goblins, including the goblins in uniform. Unfortunately, their days are numbered. In the good old days, police officers used to be recruited and tested for judgement, and strongly encouraged to develop superior judgement. Those days are gone. You see, there is this thing called "the book". If an officer fails to follow "the book", he may lay the organization open to an expensive lawsuit. This is "bad". To avoid this, all officers must be trained, indoctrinated, propagandized, educated and fully brainwashed into following "the book" at all times, without question. As long as the bureaucrats can claim that "the book" was followed, then it's obvious to all but the benighted amateurs (who don't count anyway) that nothing wrong, or illegal, or "inappropriate", or in any way less than righteously professional, happened. "Judgement", anywhere from superior to execrable, went with the bathwater. It's not so much discounted as it is actively unwelcome in the halls of law enforcement.

Can't quite get enough of that good military gear to play with due to nasty budget concerns? Get a rule made that allows the police to arrest things (like large amounts of money, flashy cars, cool boats, conveniently placed houses, etc.) rather than people, and fix it so that the people who own them have to prove the things were not guilty of any connection with illegal activity to get them back...or the police keep the things. Word has it that there are now whole police departments operating "off" their city budget by virtue of the sheer volume of "earnings" they manage to acquire from this lovely legal concept known as "asset forfeiture". Back in the day we amateur civilians used to call it "theft under color of authority", but what did we know?

The idea that the cops work for us is outmoded...and currently incorrect. They now work for themselves, thanks to the "iron bureaucrats" who've taken over the shop.

If you really want to get fired up on this, check out The War On Guns blog. David Codrea runs an almost daily list of excesses that are reported in the news from around the country. It'll give you a new definition of "Protect and Serve" fer sher!

Guns vs. Drugs

The similarities between the pro-gun people and the pro-drug people have always amused and infuriated me, especially as neither side seems to recognize them in the midst of their mutual antagonism. Gun people hate druggies, and vice versa, and they never seem to see that they're fighting for the same thing.

The main argument of the anti-gun and anti-drug people is that the average American simply can't handle his guns (or his drugs) without supervision, restriction and constant positive control.

The gun people have no problem demonizing the drug people, but argue that the average American has certainly proved over the years that he is indeed mature enough, responsible enough and careful enough to avoid becoming any sort of danger to the community at large. "80 million gun owners didn't kill anybody yesterday!" For the most part, they seem to have a rather cogent point.

The drug people have no trouble demonizing gun owners, but argue that the average American is indeed mature enough, careful enough and responsible enough to avoid becoming a danger or a risk to the people around them. Given the tremendous number of undiscovered people in the country who are consuming illegal drugs on a weekly basis without going psychotic, running their cars into living rooms or swimming pools or removing their spleens with fingernail scissors, they would seem to have an equally cogent point.

Either the average American really is a responsible, mature, self-disciplined character who can be trusted to run his own affairs without endangering the neighborhood, and can therefore be trusted with his guns or his drugs...or he's not. If not, then we need to give up the guns and the drugs and submit to the control of those who know better than we do how our lives should be run. It's for our own good...

Opposites examined.

Political tags -- such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth -- are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.
Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein was a very astute observer of the human condition. I've been aware of this quote for something like 35 years, and I've seen countless examples to prove it virtually unchallengeable. It reflects itself in so many, many different areas...

Gun Control
The gun grabbers (just to show up front where I stand on the issue) are determined that, not only do they want nothing to do with guns (for a variety of sometimes very good reasons), but they want no one else to have anything to do with guns either. Many of them feel that all firearms should be made to disappear tomorrow. In short, they're determined that everybody is going to do things their way. Frequently having self-discipline problems, they want to be controlled and they want everyone else controlled the same way. That gives them a "level playing field".

On the pro-gun side, it's very difficult to find anyone who insists that everyone be armed. The overwhelming majority are quite happy with the idea of allowing anyone who wishes to arm themselves to do so, and have little or no argument with those who wish to have nothing to do with firearms. As far as they're concerned, it's a personal choice that needs to be left to the person(s) involved. They're quite happily in control of themselves, and expect everyone else to do the same. (It's simply the adult thing to do, you see.)

Alcohol

I've noticed a new crop of billboards around my town. Each one shows the picture of a cute kid around 7 to 10 years old with a major caption saying, "Start talking to your kids before they start drinking". In small letters next to the child's picture, it says something like, "Sarah. First drink, age 14."

I'm confused. The implication seems to be that little Sarah grew up to be a poor, lost sheep. Demon Rum done got her! On the other hand, it's a known in certain circles that the Italians start their kids off on watered wine around age 10 or 11, and general drunkenness throughout the population doesn't seem to have occurred. The French no doubt have similar customs. Both countries enjoy a far lower rate of cardiovascular disease than we do. Personally, I had my "first drink" at the age of eight and currently drink alcohol on a daily basis, budget permitting. I enjoy my wine and the Reverend Jack Daniels and I are good friends. OTOH, it's been so long since the last time I was drunk (by any meaningful use of the term) that my wife can't accurately count the years.

There are those who spend their entire weekends full of beer, hazed out and blearily content with their Sunday afternoon hangover. There are others who consider that allowing alcohol to pass their lips is a sin and the very measure of bad character.
A study out last year stated that the alcohol problem in America was far more widespread and serious than most of us realized and was frequently very hard to spot because it involved people who had as few as two or three drinks a week. Personally, I figure that if there's an alcohol problem with someone who's only having two or three drinks a week, they're not the ones with the problem.

The vast majority of us fall somewhere in the middle. Again, the issue seems to come back to self-discipline. Morally and socially, most of us don't like drunks, and don't like being drunk. Drunkenness is a measure of "bad character". It shows a disturbing lack of self control.

Once again, the "anti-" side is determined that everybody will do things their way...or else! We tried it their way for awhile. "Prohibition" lasted for 13 years and gave us organized crime, non-existent in our country until that time. It also gave us massive corruption at all levels of government, major intrusions into private affairs where the government arguably has no business whatsoever, and a general level of drinking and drunkenness that were unequalled before or since. Once the law was repealed in 1933, things went more-or-less back to normal, much to the disgust of the prohibition crowd.

And once again, the "pro-" side sees it as matter of personal choice, and expects the individual to exercise proper restraint. For the most part, we succeed.

Tobacco

Tobacco currently holds a position similar to that of marijuana back in the 1950's. It's the "demon weed", causing all sorts of havoc throughout the community, and it's time its evil influence was ended once and for all.

Smokers make up about a quarter of the population...and are now considered second class citizens at best by a large portion of the other three quarters of the community.

"Second-hand smoke" is considered a dangerous carcinogen and general health threat, to the point that some people think that deliberately exposing them to such filth is equivalent to an assault. All this springs from a 1993 EPA report that was such a blatant example of sagecraft that a federal judge, examining the report as part of a lawsuit, stated that even without formal scientific training it was painfully obvious to him that the authors had first decided what the report was going to say and then gone out to do the study confirming it.

Virtually no one has heard of the studies showing that smoking seems to delay the onset and/or severity of Alzheimers disease and Parkinsons's disease, helps to prevent breast cancer, helps to prevent and relieve coronary occlusions (the main cause of heart attacks), and even helps prevent gum disease. (Try Googling "benefits of smoking", it'll blow your mind!)

Massachusetts is considering banning smoking in all public places statewide. Another state is banning smoking even in private homes if it bothers the neighbors!! In England, a man has been denied therapeutic surgery for a broken foot bone that will not knit; the doctors claim smoking will interfere with his recovery so why bother...unless he proves he's quit smoking before hand.

Many argue that smokers deserve whatever limits government or society choose to place on them because of the medical costs they impose on the community at large. Come again? The primary impression is that smokers die younger than the rest of us. If so, how are they consuming medical resources? They're dead!

Granted, smoking is a filthy habit. The ashes get everywhere, coals burn holes in clothing and furniture, the smoke is frequently noxious and may trigger asthma attacks, and some smokers are deliberately rude about the effects of their smoking on others.

Nonetheless, is this really a subject for major legal action? Once again, the "anti's" are determined that everyone will do things their way, or else! The other side is for personal choice/discipline/control/responsibility. Which would you rather have for a neighbor?