Regular readers will understand why I’ve waited until now to talk about the recent police-involved shootings in Louisiana and Minnesota, the resultant cop-killing atrocity in Dallas, and the other deadly ripples we’re seeing spread from it all. That’s because regular readers know one tenet here is to wait until information is in from both sides before we judge and condemn.
Our President, whom we are told once taught Constitutional Law, implied to the nation and the world that the two officer-involved shootings were bad acts, yet as details slowly emerge we find that in both cases the cops apparently shot armed men who appeared to be reaching for guns…men who, the cops had reason to believe even before each contact was made, might well be armed and dangerous.
We are seeing marchers turning violent. We are seeing them block highways, not just keeping decent working people from getting to work and home from work, but potentially blocking ambulances from saving innocent lives. All so those marchers can “make a point” and feel good about themselves for doing something they think is positive.
At the Denver airport today, I read in the Denver Post of a 14-year-old black youth who said he would run if he saw police, for fear they would murder him, because he had been led to believe that cops were epidemically murdering innocent black people for no reason. When you run from police, you arouse their suspicion and, in the Supreme Court’s guiding Illinois v. Wardlow decision, give them Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that warrants their pursuit of the fleeing person. Things have now escalated. Being chased by the police will seem to confirm the false fear that police want to kill that young boy, and if he panics and does something stupid and things get violent…the cycle of tragedy will continue. Whoever told that kid to react that way should be ashamed.
For decades, I’ve spoken against the old paradigm of law enforcement that says, “We don’t discuss our cases in the press, it will all come out in court.” It’s a paradigm born in the responsibility of the officers to remember that those we arrest are innocent until proven guilty, and we can’t defame them and bring heartbreak to their loved ones until they have been adjudicated in a court of law. But when it is the police who are the accused, their silence and reticence to tell their side of what happened is seen by the public as a plea of no contest and, sadly, as an admission of guilt. Within 24 hours of a shooting like the ones in Louisiana and Minnesota, the investigators generally have a damn good idea of what happened. If the police had “gotten ahead of the meme” by publicly stating what the investigation showed thus far had actually occurred, might these ripples of tragedy have been prevented?
There is still much to be revealed. “The truth is out there” … but not “out there” to the public and in the media. Much of the “breaking news” that people acted upon was “broken news.” And, I fear, those ripples of violence have not yet settled in the troubled waters in which our nation is now swimming.
Your discussion here is welcome.
Yeah, TN_MAN, I think there must be a better way to state that thought. The “desire to do good” can be small, like helping a spouse or children, feeding the hungry, or helping an elderly woman cross the street. That would not do the harm to which you are referring. Let me try to restate your proposition;
The greatest evil in the world is the desire to change the world for the better.
The greatest evil in the world is the desire to do good on a large scale.
The greatest evil in the world is to force others to bring about our version of utopia.
You are right about the large-scale do-gooders being tyrants. They simply need to mind their own business. They should try to make themselves better people. The world can’t be improved by our efforts. Whatever we set up will always collapse. Human nature is what it is. Look at how we have tried to improve the Middle East. Ah, but I guess a do-gooder could argue that both Germany and Japan have been improved since the 1940s. The world is complicated. I guess improvements CAN last a while, but in the end, entropy always triumphs. Some day the pyramids will wear away, and the grains of sand in their rocks will become grains of sand in the desert. Then the pyramids will be “dust in the wind.”
Mas,
The percentage of brutal police officers is very low. The problems I see are many officers who can’t seem to be able to treat black citizens with any respect at all and lying police officers who substitute perjury for competent police work.
To answer your question, a couple percent brutal. 15% will perjure themselves at least occasionally when they think a conviction is important enough to warrant it. At least 60% racist though most make some effort to hide it, but they still treat black citizens very differently from white ones.
This is not completely an issue of race. I’ve encountered a few really bad black cops and a whole lot of good ones, black and white. But anyone who sets foot in a courtroom and listens understands why the black community is pretty hesitant to call the police. Racial disparity of treatment at every level is so obvious you have to be blind not to see it.
Finally,as to racism. This does not have to be an insurmountable problem. The answer is professionalism and training. It doesn’t matter what a police officer, a doctor, a lawyer or anyone else thinks and feels. It matters what we say and do and how we treat each other. What is important is a steadfast determination that we will all treat each other fairly in word and deed and that on the job no one call tell what our biases are by our words and actions.
Finally, I really appreciate your thoughtful and respectful responses to my thoughts. One of the biggest problems we have is the attitude that people we don’t agree with are evil or idiots. That is not the case and if we listen to each other sometimes we can learn something. Walt
Mas, you have always rightly taught the first to call 911 is considered the victim/complainant. It is time for LEO to adopt that concept. Their own sense of decency is proving to be their downfall. They simply cannot concede anything – not anymore.
Dennis, please accept my sincerest condolences for your personal loss.
Walt: What makes you think 60% of cops are racist? How many of those are white/black/hispanic/asian cops?
You tell me that 15% of cops in your experience will lie to get a conviction. You describe yourself as an attorney who does a lot of criminal defense: what percent of your colleagues have you seen stretch the truth to impeach an arresting officer, victim/complainant, or witness who they know is telling the truth, because their testimony is harmful to their client? (Not suggesting that two wrongs equal a right here, but merely seeking perspective.)
We may end up “agreeing to respectfully disagree,” but I am not seeing the numbers you are claiming.
@ Roger Willco:
There is a fundamental impulse, among humans, to want to improve the world. A lot of this flows from our own ego. We all want to say: “Look at me! I have accomplished something BIG with my life. I have changed the World. The World is a BETTER PLACE because I existed. It is a BETTER PLACE because I LIVED.” All humans would like to have that ego trip.
Therefore the “Top Down” approach has very great appeal to humans. The Black Lives Matter people are on an ego trip. They believe that they are “Social Warriors”. They believe that they are going to fundamentally transform the United States by means of their “Progressive Movement”. The gun grabbers are on a similar ego trip.
The problem is that these “Top Down”, grand-scale movements almost never work. Usually they end up only making a bad situation worse. BLM, ISIS, the Gun Control Movement, etc. are all examples of this effect.
Buddhism teaches us that we must kill the egoist self. We must accept the constant change and flux of the world. We must abandon dreams of an earthly utopia.
You want to improve the World? I will tell you how to do it. Forget the ego trip. Forget the Top Down approach. Concentrate instead on the small scale, “Bottom up” approach. Lead your life showing compassion and consideration to your fellow humans. Concentrate on small acts of kindness.
If all humans did this instead of going for the ego trip, the World WOULD BE a better place.
I said that I was going to try to stay out of this conversation, and I will to a point.
This thread has evolved (or devolved) to dueling ideologies. One side says “wait till the facts come out, analyze those facts from an unbiased perspective, before casting guilt”. Another says “I’ve got all the info I need, from initial reports, because I’ve seen this scenario too many times before”.
I fall on the “wait for the facts” side. Why? Well, maybe it’s because I’ve seen, on cases such as these being discussed, that after all the dust has settled, after the facts do come out, in the overwhelming majority, the final, true, demonstrably true, scenario has no resemblance to the original, over-hyped story from the media. Maybe it’s because most of those who jump to convict police officers, do so because of a false narrative molded into their minds by a media that, at best are looking for sensationalism, or at worse are intentionally misleading folks with an intent to sow discord. In so many cases, conversations about supposed police misconduct, those who come from an anti-cop perspective, when questioned if they, themselves, have had a bad experience with police, the response is usually no, but I’ve “heard” or “read” so many bad things. Most would be shocked at the true, after the dust settles, extremely small percentage of real police misconduct that exists. I’ve pointed out in the past that medical malpractice resulting in death or permanent bodily harm is exponentially and demonstrably greater than that resulting from contact with a police officer. I still go to the doctor or hospital with no fear that they will not do their job well.
I also suspect that if anyone wanted to go to the trouble of researching the subject, that African-Americans suffer more from medical malpractice than do white folks. Why does no one try to start this narrative? Could it be that their are no political advantages to driving a wedge between medical professionals and the people?
People, our world is coming unraveled. While politicians and professional race hustlers are trying to focus our attention on problems that less then 1/100th of one percent of our populace will ever experience, Russia is talking all out war with the west, North Korea has never stopped talking that, China is preparing for this as inevitable, our allies are coming under terrorist attacks from folks that hate them (and us), Iran is frantically seeking nuclear weapons to destroy us. What are we doing? We are about to re-fight the Civil War for reasons based on lies and media hype.
@tc: That’s just a different version of the same offensive argument.
In your prior post, you said “The Harvard study found that blacks … were more likely to be handcuffed or physically restrained.”
What you left out of that statement was what the study actually concluded: “On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.”
Note the second sentence. Even after reducing the percentages for the kind of factors you are so enamored with, blacks and Hispanics were still subjected to the use of force 17%-25% more often than whites.
Whether or not that study is correct (and even its author acknowledges that it was done on a local and limited set of data), for the “there’s just more crime among blacks” argument to have any weight then it must be shown that the level of crime accounts for _all_ or substantially all of the difference in treatment. That’s particularly true when it is tossed out as the absolute answer to the difference, as you have. Because, once again, it implies that blacks are all criminals and they deserve what they get.
The idea that police sometimes have to investigate people of similar characteristics is insufficient to explain why the most or all black people, especially black males, experience physical encounters with the police _unless_ the similar characteristic is limited to “black person” or “black male.” And if police stop people for investigation, especially investigation with the use of force, on that description alone, it is racist.
And all that doesn’t even address the circular question of the degree to which the higher rate of reported crime in the black community is the _result_ of racially-motivated disproportionate law enforcement in that community.
Citing the higher crime rate in the black community, even in response to statistics about the disproportionate level of enforcement there, is just switching from “they’re all criminals and they deserve it” to “they’re mostly criminals and they deserve it.”
Mas – “That’s because regular readers know one tenet here is to wait until information is in from both sides before we judge and condemn.” Good principle.
Why is something so simple so rare?
Mas,
We need to clarify roles in society here. If I am a prosecutor I am supposed to represent the interests of all citizens of the state, including the defendant. And in fact, I’ve had prosecutors drop charges in cases up to and including murder when it the right thing to do. The police are supposed to objectively investigate crimes and solve them when they can.
A defense attorney has a duty solely to his/ her client. That, along with placing the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the state is how our society tries to remedy the tremendous disparity of power between the individual and the state. Having said that. We are not allowed to knowingly present false testimony or evidence. I would say the ratio of lies from the police to defense attorneys is at least 100 to 1 because we don’t want to get disbarred and they get away with it, or, when they get caught, there are no consequences. Now without presenting false evidence we can, and do, vigorously
Make the state prove its cases. If you or someone you cared about was accused of wrongdoing you sure would want an experienced, ethical, and aggressive defense whether or not you/ they were guilty.
You pointed out that the police are the ones who arrest bad cops ( like anyone else could do it). Well, people in my line of work get the good guys who have been wrongfully accused acquitted. And we practice on the bad guys.
TN_MAN,
Well said! I really enjoy your posts, along with everyone else’s here.
I’ve noticed that in Buddhism it is taught that desire leads to suffering. Buddhists are taught to free themselves from desire, so that greed or unfulfilled desires won’t lead to suffering. This is similar to the Jewish/Christian’s Tenth Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet” (covetousness is like greed). However, few Jews or Christians in the West really talk about the Tenth Commandment much. That is why the Buddhist concept seems so foreign to us. America is all about getting stuff. Advertising feeds envy and the desire for more, more, more.
Walt, having been on both sides of the prosecution/defense tables, I know the roles, but thank you for providing that info for any new readers who don’t work within the criminal justice system.
You just wrote, “I would say the ratio of lies from the police to defense attorneys is at least 100 to 1 because we don’t want to get disbarred and they get away with it, or, when they get caught, there are no consequences.”
I have to call BS on that, on more than one count.
You imply that defense lawyers aren’t intentionally deceptive because they fear they’ll lose jobs and identities they cherish. What makes you think cops don’t have the same incentive to be truthful? A disgraced, disbarred attorney can always find work as a bill collector or in litigation support, but a disgraced cop fired for committing perjury (a felony in every state I know of) would be lucky to find work as an elevator operator…if society still had elevator operators. I believe a lying cop is more likely to be fired than a lying attorney is to be disbarred.
When an unscrupulous defense attorney tries to tell a jury that the rapist is innocent because the rape victim was promiscuous, that’s intentional deception. When said attorney knowingly twists facts to impugn the integrity of an arresting officer or adverse witness, a routine practice as you know, it’s a lie. And you say cops lie 100 times more than defense lawyers?
Sorry…gotta call BS.
That said, I applaud you for the times you’ve been able to “get the good guys who have been wrongfully accused acquitted.” Having been able to help do the same several times myself, I know how good it feels.
Mas said, “When an unscrupulous defense attorney tries to tell a jury that the rapist is innocent because the rape victim was promiscuous, that’s intentional deception.” That’s not true, but let me start out by saying that I hate the argument I’m about to make, but my dislike of it does not diminish its accuracy. The fact of the matter is that the laws of many jurisdictions allow proof of the promiscuity of the complainant (generally as an exception to the “rape shield” laws which are supposed to prevent such proof, but which have such broad exceptions that the exceptions outweigh the prevention). When such exceptions exist and when the evidence supports the promiscuity of the complainant, it would be malpractice for a criminal defense attorney not to raise it unless there is a tactical reason not to do so. It would only be a lie if the defense attorney raises it with no evidence to support it. (Having said that, the real problem is that the law should be that it cannot be raised at all.)
BLM is doing the same thing that jihadist propagandists do.
The Boston marathon bombers said they were striking back against “America’s war on Moslems”, i.e. drone strikes on ISIS in Syria, al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan, which kill Moslems. What they apparently never noticed is that ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Taliban are killing Moslems by the thousands; U.S. actions are intended to stop them.
Likewise the BLM propaganda focuses on blacks killed by police, never mind that nearly all of these are criminals, or the enormously larger number of blacks killed by such black criminals.
Add this to the information that may be relevant in the Alton Sterling investigation that local news media found, but the national propaganda media somehow has decided not to inform their followers of……
.http://www.walb.com/story/32431300/the-investigators-new-details-show-eerily-similar-incident-involving-sterling-police?clienttype=generic&sf30845882=1
@ Roger Willco:
It is true that the rampant materialism of America and the West, in general, is contrary to Buddhism and many other religious teachings.
However, the problem of “fanatical goodness”, which I outlined above, cannot be blamed upon capitalist greed. Instead, as I also noted above, it is mostly to be blamed upon the human ego.
Karl Marx and the Communists went on one of the most extreme, ego-trip, fanatical-goodness episodes in human history. The result was:
The Russian Revolution
The Chinese Revolution
World War II
The Cold War
The Korean War
The Vietnam War
The Killing Fields of Cambodia
Numerous other “Brush-fire” wars and revolutions
And untold millions of dead humans
Yet, supposedly, their fight was AGAINST capitalist greed!
It ultimately comes down to human pride, human arrogance and the human ego.
The Buddhists are 100% correct when they say that the first step to enlightenment is to kill the egoist self. It is also the first step to a “Better World”.
It is the ultimate arrogance of both left-wing and right-wing extremest thinking that anyone can believe that they can join and support a movement and that it will then change the world for the better.
All these movements (Prohibition of Alcohol, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, BLM, Gun Control, ISIS and the list goes on without end) are nothing more than expressions of human arrogance and ego. Their supporters get their ego puffed up with pride at being part of an important “Movement”. Then it is the people of the world that reap the disastrous consequences of these expressions of pride and arrogance. They reap the misery and death that these movements always bring.
We see the harvest of misery and death underway today. It was reaped in Orlando and Dallas. It was reaped within the last day or two in Nice, France. The harvest is underway now in Turkey. Activists of the World Rejoice! Sit back and admire the results of stroking your ego! Sit back and admire your handiwork!
P.S.- to above post. This evidence of prior violent response by Sterling towards police points toward several possibilities. He is, by nature, a violent person who has chosen to live a life contrary to civilized law? He chooses to resist authorities who attempt to enforce the laws that society has charged them with enforcing? He repeatedly carries a weapon, which is illegal for him to do on so many levels, yet, this fact is conveniently ignored by those who scream about “getting weapons out of the hands of criminals”, but whose hatred of cops trumps their desire for a “no guns” society.
I will even concede that Sterling may not have carried weapons on a regular basis for the possibility of use against police officers. No, I submit that he did so for protection from other drug dealers, or those who would rob him of his ill-gotten gains, a much more likely eventuality. Which-ever was the case, I am left to wonder, who among the cop haters, would give someone the benefit of the doubt, while wrestling on the ground with this person, on his intentions as he tries to pull this weapon.
I don’t know why I am responding to these “anti’s”. Human nature I guess. One thing I’ve learned long ago, when dealing with those who scream “bias” at every opportunity; seldom, if ever, will admit to their own.
@Rich Rostrom: You say, “Likewise the BLM propaganda focuses on blacks killed by police, never mind … the enormously larger number of blacks killed by such black criminals.” So what? Just because blacks are killed by other blacks, that justifies police brutality against all blacks? Why doesn’t the fact that some whites are killed by other whites justify police brutality against all whites?
You also say, “that nearly all of these are criminals.” So because some of them have committed a crime in the past, the police should have the right to just kill them on sight?
Define criminal, too, while you’re at it. When I was in undergraduate school I had a sociology prof who one day asked the class a series of questions. Have you ever done this, have you ever done that? The questions seemed to be innocuous, thing’s like “have you ever gone into a friends house when no one was there to invite you in”, but at the end of the list he asked the class – which was all or virtually all white back in those days – to put up their hands if they had answered any one of them “yes.” Almost all or maybe all hands went up and he responded, “Congratulations! You’ve committed a felony.” Was everyone who raised their hand a criminal? Should the police have had the right to shoot them on sight or rough them up? I won’t say whether I was one of the students who raised their hand, but here in Texas common traffic offenses are Class C misdemeanors, a criminal offense. I’ve had a red light ticket which I paid, am I a criminal? How about Philando Castile who had an large number of traffic tickets, but nothing else? Twelve year old Tamir Rice? Does the fact that some other people shot by police have an extensive, serious criminal record justify shooting those two?
Both of these are arguments that because some black people have committed crimes, all black people deserve to be brutalized.
Dave, you just asked,
“Why doesn’t the fact that some whites are killed by other whites justify police brutality against all whites?”
And you said,
“So because some of them have committed a crime in the past, the police should have the right to just kill them on sight?”
No one has suggested either of those things here, and the police shooting cases under discussion all involved individuals whose actions were construable as warranting a deadly force response.
Mas: The arguments, as I have explained, imply exactly those things when taken to their logical conclusion. (And my arguments and statements such as those can be easily misunderstood when taken out the context in which I used them in response to Rich Rostom’s argument.)
The argument that blacks kill other blacks, which is what I was responding to in the first one, is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of police relationships with black people _unless_ you take it to mean that all blacks are criminals and deserve what they get. It’s a version of the argument that blacks must get their own house in order before they can expect being treated by the police the same way white people are treated. Why should any _individual_ black person not expect and have the right to be treated like a white person just because blacks kill other blacks or because there is a high rate of crime in black communities? Again, it’s casting the characteristics of some people in that group to all people in that group and when the group is defined by race, that’s racist. That argument would also deny equal treatment to everyone in that community because some in that community act inappropriately, which is also racist for the same reason. Ultimately, those arguments are just a version of the old openly-racist argument that “those people are animals and don’t deserve to be treated like human beings.”
You said, “the police shooting cases under discussion all involved individuals whose actions were construable as warranting a deadly force response.” Perhaps, but that’s not what Rostom said. He didn’t say that the events at those individual cases justified or didn’t justify the deadly force response, he made a generalization about the _personal_characteristics_ of blacks killed by police. He said, “Likewise the BLM propaganda focuses on blacks killed by police, never mind that nearly all of these are criminals, or the enormously larger number of blacks killed by such black criminals.”
And, as I pointed out in my responses to tc’s statements, that does not even take into account the question of whether and if so how much the crime rate in the black community is higher due to racially disproportionate enforcement there and whether and if so how much the large number of members of that community who have criminal records — that is, are “criminals” — results from such disproportionate enforcement.
Finally, please understand that I’m being very careful here only to refer to people’s statements and arguments, not to them themselves. I don’t mean by that that I think or intend to imply things about the individuals. Indeed, I would hope that these statements and arguments are just careless talk which they would not have said if they had understood the implications and thought it through.
About Garrity………I’m not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express.
What Garrity actually says is that if a sworn officer is ordered to make a statement, the contents of that compelled statement cannot be used in a criminal prosecution. The compelled statement may violate 5th Amendment rights.
I suspect that much of the alleged “racism” is actually a reaction to the lack of class of many of the folks LE deals with on a daily basis. There used to be a higher degree of civility and, dare we say it, manners in our society.
Several years ago a black columnist (William Raspberry ?) did a column on “the talk” that he, as a black father, had to have with his son about how to deal with the police. This spawned a discussion at my place of employment that crossed racial, cultural, ethnic and other diversity markers. The collective opinion was that this particular speech had to be made by ALL caring fathers to their sons and repeated as necessary.
Liberal Dave,
You wrote “many jurisdictions allow proof of the promiscuity of the victim”. (albeit you noted your disagreement to that, you also say you would be remiss if you didn’t use that tool). Why not point out at the same time, your client is shielded from proof of his prior conduct, even if it included numerous prior sexual assault convictions, during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial?
We all, who have experience in the criminal justice field, know that you don’t lie under oath. When faced with a question that, if answered to the best of your knowledge, would hurt your case, you instead, “don’t recall”. (when Hillary Clinton is under oath, it seems that 90% of her vocabulary consists of “I don’t recall” and “I have no recollection”. That is another of the “tactics” available in a court of law. The human brain is a wondrous mystery, no one can tell you whether you recall some fact or not.
Is this “tactic” a tool that should be used by the defendant, but should be considered a “lie” or “dishonest” if used by the prosecution?
I only bring these things up because, at least I thought, this started as a discussion of why we should wait until ALL the facts come out, before jumping to conclusions based on only one side of the case. No one, and I repeat, no one, would ever be be exonerated if the only facts brought before a court were those of the prosecution.
Every one has biases, as loudly demonstrated as this thread progressed. Anti-cop biased folks would lynch the officers for their “perceived” transgressions, without waiting for all the facts, all the while touting their self perception of a moral superiority over those evil, dishonest, racially biased cops.
Some have thrown out numbers such as a cop is “100 times” more likely to lie in court than a lawyer. Is this a demonstratively provable ratio, or an intentionally misleading attempt to bolster his case based on his own biases (and did he just tell a lie in his attempt to call another profession a bunch of liars)? If his claim is provable, I would suggest that he has done his clients a disservice by not filing perjury complaints on their behalf. The easiest way to get an officer banned from law enforcement for life is to prove he/she lied under oath. Their testimony will forever be impeachable in court, rendering them useless for any department. But then, an attorney would know that.
Just the musings of an old man. No hard feelings. Still friends.
Liberal Dave,
I apologize for including comments that should have been directed toward another poster, in a comment directed to you. Truth is, I have no doubts as to your being a knowledgeable attorney and respect your posts as being sincere, even if our philosophies differ. I do have my doubts as to the background of another who is claiming to be an attorney. His writing style and demeanor reminds me of an anti-cop troll who injected himself into a similar discussion here, some time back, who used several pseudonyms, and claimed several different backgrounds to attempt to bolster his claims of expertise.
Dennis, first off the bat no apology was needed. I understood that you weren’t directing that at me. Still friends and I’m glad you’re back and up to posting again.
Perhaps I’m just straight-laced, but I consider saying under oath that one doesn’t recall when one does recall is just as much perjury, perhaps unprovable perjury but perjury nonetheless, as saying that one remembers when one does not.
You said, “Why not point out at the same time, your client is shielded from proof of his prior conduct, even if it included numerous prior sexual assault convictions, during the guilt/innocence phase of the trial?” Well, that was kinda subsumed by my point about promiscuity testimony: the rules allow us to do certain things and prohibit us from doing others. Promiscuity testimony is allowed and it should be used, if supported by the evidence; proof of prior convictions is not allowed during guilt/innocence phase and it should not be used. Frankly, allowing promiscuity evidence should not be allowed for the _very_same_reason_ that prior conviction evidence isn’t allowed: while it may or may not be _utterly_ devoid of any probative effect, it is so inflammatory and prejudicial that its use is grossly unfair.
I’m sorry that you lost a friend and an acquaintance, along with other brothers in blue, due to the despicable acts of that monster in Dallas. I mourn for your, their, their families’, and the community’s loss.
WR Moore said, “Several years ago a black columnist (William Raspberry ?) did a column on “the talk” that he, as a black father, had to have with his son about how to deal with the police. This spawned a discussion at my place of employment… The collective opinion was that this particular speech had to be made by ALL caring fathers to their sons and repeated as necessary.”
That brings up the interesting question of whether American law enforcement is _generally_ unnecessarily violent and confrontative, with blacks and other minorities getting the worse end of the stick but everyone suffering from it.
Mas allowed me to have a guest column some time back in which I discussed law enforcement reforms being formulated by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), which were subsequently completed and published and a long discussion resulted here about them. I don’t intend to restart or reignite that discussion here, but I would like to point out a couple of related interested things:
In a guest column in the Austin American-Statesman Terrence Allen, an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at The University of Texas at Austin, argued that black communities need more black cops patrolling them. While that argument and the reasons for it are interesting, something he says along the way is particularly interesting in reference to “The Talk”. He says, “It is difficult to find an African American who has not had a negative experience with a police officer. Learning how to interact with police officers is tantamount to slaves learning how to interact with overseers.” However useful and necessary it may be, The Talk has substantially different connotations and implications for black people than it does for whites. See http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/opinion/allen-what-is-missing-in-patroling-african-america/nrx3g/ for the full article.
Next, I’m hesitant to point this out, first, because it comes from a snarky comedy site and, second, because in one aspect it disagrees with some of the evidence advanced to support the PERF report, but Cracked published a commentary by a British ex-police officer, “I Was A Cop in A Country With No Guns: 6 Startling Truths” If you can get past the extreme British slang (which appears to have been laid on with a trowel for comic effect) the article says some really interesting things which both support (mostly) and erode (slightly) the position taken by the PERF report. It’s at http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-2353-i-was-cop-in-country-with-no-guns-6-startling-truths.html While there’s _much_ there that’s interesting, perhaps the most interesting to me is that there is no crime of resisting arrest in England.
The news continues to be troubling.
In the previous “More on Gun Free Zones” blog, I proposed a scenario that I called the “Obama Power-Seizure Plan”. I noted that this scenario “connected the dots” concerning the events that have occurred during the Obama Presidency.
Nothing in the recent news is contradicting this scenario. The terrorist attack in Nice, France. The coup and unrest in Turkey. The new shooting of police officers in Baton Rouge. These events are just more “dots” that connect right up with the theoretical scenario that I gave in the previous blog.
This makes me even more troubled and concerned for the future of the U.S.A.
Just a little more information about the system. In Michigan, where I practice, you cannot make any reference to the victims prior sexual relationships except with accused. This has been taken to such an extreme that in two trial I’ve held, the fact that the alleged victim was a working prostitute when she was picked up by my clients was hidden from the jury.
Additionally here we have a rule of evidence, 404 (b) (3) that allows testimony as to similar acts even where there has not been a prior conviction of any crime.
Obviously, the rules may be different in other states, but where I practice, accusations of promiscuity would generate a mistrial and sanctions against the defendant’s attorney.
Mas,
I am late coming to this discussion and I thank you (and BHM) for supplying this platform. I have read all the previous comments and respectfully offer that everyone, though many offered good advice, has missed a major point which I believe is THE main point of conflict between police and citizens and is also relevant to an officer’s oath, to uphold and support the Constitution.
There are two major division of “laws”, that are currently in vogue, although one was unknown by the founders. I am talking about “mala prohibita” laws, often called “victimless crimes” that have been passed by well meaning do-gooders, tyrants and those hoping to profit from their enforcement. These are distinguished from laws protecting all from actual harm, called “mala in se”.
Officers were once called “Peace Officers” as they were strictly involved in protecting individuals from actual harm, either to their person or property. They are now called Enforcers (LEO’s) as they are required to behave as armed nannies, in controlling the personal actions of citizens who are harming no one, except possibly themselves, which is their inherent right, even if stupid. Primary among these are the drug laws or I should say, the war on some drugs, although there are many other types of these “rules”. These violations of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the actual intent of The Constitution, has resulted in a major source of revenue for the government, local, state and federal, from fines, legal fees and the prison industry.
These mala prohibita rules often impact minorities, both of color and culture, more than others. It is a major reason, in my opinion, why many people “fear” the police. There are so many of these victimless rules and so many people possibly violating them that they have a tendency to raise a degree of paranoia, even among the innocent.
Thomas Jefferson once said “The only legitimate reason for government is to protect the rights of every individual from the equal rights of every other individual.” The government has gone way past this in their attempt to control the actions and behavior of people, for whatever reasons.
Cops need to respect their oaths, the citizens and refuse to enforce ANY mala prohibita rule of control or revenue income, stop being armed nannies and stop being Enforcement Officers and return to their righteous duties as Peace Officers. If they return to protecting the rights of each, they will regain the respect of all.
Thank you for allowing me to input this important aspect of the major error or evil, IMHO, that is affecting America today.
Mas, (YOU MAY WANT TO WITHHOLD THIS POST FROM THIS THREAD, OR ANY THREAD but it plays a part in the recent shooting in Baton Rouge. Regardless, I would like to hear your viewpoint on this at some time.)
Mas, It was reported on some “news” feed that the shooter in Baton Rouge, liked this video from Larken Rose (no other connection mentioned). While I certainly DO NOT support any aspect of the shooters decision, nor necessarily the contents of the video, I do believe it is something that every LEO should be aware of and hopefully, at some point, will be a part of the excellent discussions you bring forth.
http://www.larkenrose.com/av-media/video/2214-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop.html
@ Tahn Says:
Well, in American History, Those resisting British Tyranny, were Called American Founding Fathers, and Hero’s, but of course they won, and so wrote the accepted version of the History of the American Revolutionary War!
Unfortunately, the American’s who made that History, and won that Freedom for all succeeding generations of American’s, are now only Brave Images, that were used to raise our young, giving them the Morales, and Standards, by which we hoped they would live, as grown up, voting adults, to carry on that American History, for future Generations!
Today’s American Sheeple, living for the pleasure of the moment, unwilling even to “Work For a Living”, so long as their Government Welfare Checks arrive on schedule, would be shunned by our Fore Fathers, and Ridiculed for their “Life Styles” and lack Morale Standards, God, Duty, Honor, and Patriotism!
I hate to say it, But the Old America, that I knew, Loved, and Served, is now Dead, and Gone. If, somewhere within the depths of this Country, there still exist those with the Original American set of Values, Patriotism, and spirit, they will now be branded as Outlaws, and Terrorists, until, and unless, they to can finally succeed against Overwhelming Odds, and Forces, to re-win a new American Freedom.
And after doing so, hopefully install a better version of the American Constitution, that will guard against “Carrier Politicians”, limited to those who are of the “Voting Class of Citizens”, who may only serve up to a maximum 6 years, and are not given a “Retirement” for that Political Service, Power Brokers, and create a “Voting Class of Citizens”, composed of only those who devoted at least 4 years, of Public Service, in our Military, or Government!
The Larkenrose video is typical sophomoric fuzzy thinking. It’s “I’ll just obey the laws I like,” pick-and-chose thinking, which snarkily dismiss the role of the courts and the political process for changing laws and, ultimately, the idea of representative democracy itself, since it takes the position that every individual gets to decide whether laws are just or unjust and how to interpret them. If that’s not anarchy, it’s darn close.
It argues a version of the “we need guns to protect ourselves against the government” position, the only difference being that they not only see that need in the abstract but also see the need to _use_ those guns against the primary enforcement representative of government citizens encounter on a daily basis in order to impose and enforce their own selection and interpretation of laws.
You know, that’s not so very much different from those who believe that they need guns to protect themselves against the imposition of gun control laws that they individually interpret to be unconstitutional and who say that they’ll refuse to follow those laws if enacted. Same claim of the right of self-interpretation, same lack of confidence in the courts and the law-making process, same pick-and-choose on the laws, just different self-claimed rights. Equally nonsense, equally sophomoric, and same appeal to potential violence against law enforcement officers tasked to enforce the law.
I’ve probably said this here before, but my very wise high school civics teacher said that the way the desks in the houses of Congress are arranged in a semicircle symbolizes (I don’t think she meant intentionally or officially) the spectrum of political belief, which can be seen as a circle. There’s moderate, and then moving away from moderate on opposite sides of the circle liberal, conservative, very liberal, very conservative, left-wing, right-wing, radical left, radical right, extremist left, extremist right, and then fascist/totalitarian/anarchist opposite to moderate. Her point was that the acts, practices, and effects of both the left and the right don’t really look that much different from one another, only the words and choices are different, on the far side of moderate. (And at moderate, too, for that matter, if you think about it.) Cop-killers and cop-haters are at both ends of the extreme, on both left and right.
Am I to assume my Reply to Tahn, Was too Controversial, or Blunt, for you to Post it on your Blog?
Paul
Paul Edwards Says: July 18th, 2016
@ Tahn Says:
Well, in American History, Those resisting British Tyranny, were Called American Founding Fathers, and Hero’s, but of course they won, and so wrote the accepted version of the History of the American Revolutionary War!
Unfortunately, the American’s who made that History, and won that Freedom for all succeeding generations of American’s, are now only Brave Images, that were used to raise our young, giving them the Morales, and Standards, by which we hoped they would live, as grown up, voting adults, to carry on that American History, for future Generations!
Today’s American Sheeple, living for the pleasure of the moment, unwilling even to “Work For a Living”, so long as their Government Welfare Checks arrive on schedule, would be shunned by our Fore Fathers, and Ridiculed for their “Life Styles” and lack Morale Standards, God, Duty, Honor, and Patriotism!
I hate to say it, But the Old America, that I knew, Loved, and Served, is now Dead, and Gone. If, somewhere within the depths of this Country, there still exist those with the Original American set of Values, Patriotism, and spirit, they will now be branded as Outlaws, and Terrorists, until, and unless, they can finally succeed against Overwhelming Odds, and Forces, to re-win a new American Freedom.
And after doing so, hopefully install a better version of the American Constitution, that will guard against “Carrier Politicians”, limited to those who are of the “Voting Class of Citizens”, who may only serve up to a maximum 6 years, and are not given a “Retirement” for that Political Service, and Power Brokers. Create a “Voting Class of Citizens”, composed of only those who devoted at least 4 years, of Public Service, in our Military, or Government!
_________________________________________________________________
First, we want to thank you for your stand against suspending the 2nd Amendment. (Message to Governor John R. Kasich of the State of Ohio, at the Behest of Gun Owners of America.)
We are Strongly Urging YOU to NOT PAY ANY HEED to the calls, trying to get YOU to illegally use Executive Orders to ban open carry in Cleveland.
I am a Retired Federal Criminal Drug Smuggling Investigator, who knows, first Hand, what it feels like to follow a large smuggling Aircraft into a clandestine Ranch strip, knowing that myself, and my Pilot, will have to deal with whoever, and whatever weapons, they may wield against us, with NO CHANCE of Backup, or assistance, in at least the next Hour, or Two!
In such situations, armed civilian HELP is always most Welcome, However remote the reality of that Hope may be, from Today’s Civilian Population?
After all, Armed Civilians now-a-days, with Government Designated “No Gun Killing Zones”, and Fear of Prosecution, means that Civilian’s Exercising their Second Amendment protection Rights, to keep and BEAR arms without being “infringed” are becoming fewer, and fewer, every day.
Additionally, It makes no sense to “blame the gun,” when a determined killer who is filled with hate can use ANY instrument he wants to carry out acts of violence.
Hence, we’ve seen 50 people killed by knives in China in 2015 … 87 burned to death with matches and gasoline at a Bronx bar in 1990 … and most recently, 84 mowed down by a 20-ton truck in France.
We don’t impose “truck control” as the answer to massacres in France, nor should we impose gun control because one fanatic misuses a firearm in Louisiana or Dallas.
We’re sure that YOU already know that guns are used FAR MORE OFTEN to save lives, than take lives (If not, Read the NRA Rifleman, or the Shooting Times, every month).
Even according to Obama’s Center for Disease Control in 2013, guns are used anywhere from 500,000 to 3 million times a year in self-defense. This means that guns are used 16-100x more often to save lives.
For these reasons, as well as your sworn Oath of Office, to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” the U.S., and Ohio State, Constitutions, YOU have made the right decision to oppose any call for suspending the Second Amendment in Cleveland.
We hope that YOU also know, that if you choose to continue standing with the Constitution, the majority of the American people will stand with you too.
Dave (the Liberal, non-Uncle) one.
First, I am in no way defending the Larkin Rose video, which I had never seen before but I would like to answer a few of the points you brought up.
You seem to infer, that he or others who might decide to stand on principles, was picking and choosing between “laws” that they might or might not agree with. That was not the impression I got. He was, I believe, speaking about “laws” or rules that threatened the freedom or lives of individuals, especially those that were enacted contrary to the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of our country. He was specifically referring to those “mala prohibita” rules of control, NOT to “mala in se” laws which protect each of us, as Mr. Jefferson said, from each other.
The Constitution merely “ enumerates” those rights that are inalienable (God given or natural) rights. It does not give us those rights of its own accord, it merely lists those rights, which all free men have. Even if the constitution were removed, which many wish for, those rights would still exist. He was, I believe, merely stating the principle of self defense, even against those supposedly representing “the State”, whoever that was/is. He used historical and documented examples of such abuses by the state which violated those inherent rights and correlated those abuses with the current state of affairs.
If I have interpreted your position correctly, you believe that any and all laws or rules enacted by government, through the representative process, are the supreme laws of the land, regardless of their moral rightness or regardless of their violation of the natural laws, enumerated in the Constitution. You imply that we should obey any mixture or miss-mash of the extreme positions represented in congress and I agree with you, there are extremes. If this is indeed your position, I strongly disagree.
I would remind you, that every atrocity committed by governments against its people, were enacted laws. Every Jew or Gypsy that Hitler herded into boxcars and shipped to an extermination camp, were done so under “duly enacted” laws, passed by their government. Same with Stalin and every other dictator in history, whether enacted by legislators or Kings. It was “the law” to obey.
Would you still consider such laws against humanity, to be valid and “legal” and must be obeyed? The Geneva Trials properly decided that “following orders” was not a sufficient excuse to exempt one from being tried for “crimes against humanity”. I concur with this decision and would like to hear your position on this. Your arguments as you presented them seem to suggest otherwise.
You also seem to say, please correct me if I am wrong, that using weapons in self defense against tyrants is only a theoretical concept and to never actually be considered in real life, especially if the tyrants are duly elected and authorized by some national authority. The many statements and actual practice of the founders, as well as the historical abuse by past regimes worldwide, show this concept to be invalid.
Sir, I have never harmed anyone with a gun and I am certainly NOT a “cop hater” as you implied, although I do believe that there are those that are but I believe that this wrong sentiment has come about because unfortunately, Peace Officers have been turned into enforcers, enforcing every arbitrary whim and rule that “elected” tyrants have come up with, either for monetary gain, control over others or some misguided desire to benefit some group.
Again, I am not defending Mr. Rose, although I stand by my first post and my comments in this one, as a reaction to your above statements.
To Dave (the liberal, non uncle) one,
In re-reading Dave’s letter and my response, I would like to retract 3 words which I should not have written. In the next to last paragraph, I said “as you implied”. Dave did not imply this about “me”. It should have read as below. Sorry Dave, I sincerely apologize for this error.
Sir, I have never harmed anyone with a gun and I am certainly NOT a “cop hater”, although I do believe that there are those that are but I believe that this wrong sentiment has come about because unfortunately, Peace Officers have been turned into enforcers, enforcing every arbitrary whim and rule that “elected” tyrants have come up with, either for monetary gain, control over others or some misguided desire to benefit some group.
@ Tahn Says:
Extremely well said Sir, The absolutely Best Explanation of ALL American’s “Natural, or God Given”, Rights, without which there would never been a Successful American Revolution, in the first place, that it has taken EVIL 240 years, to DESTROY!
However, from what our Liberal Com-mentor has said to me earlier, Our Explanation Only applies, IF you Believe in God, which I have no reason to believe that he does?
@Tahn: You said, “If I have interpreted your position correctly, you believe that any and all laws or rules enacted by government, through the representative process, are the supreme laws of the land, regardless of their moral rightness or regardless of their violation of the natural laws, enumerated in the Constitution. You imply that we should obey any mixture or miss-mash of the extreme positions represented in congress and I agree with you, there are extremes. If this is indeed your position, I strongly disagree.”
That is not my position. Unconstitutional and unfair laws are passed, sometimes frequently. The point on which I disagree with the video, however, is the implication that an ordinary means of dealing with such laws should be violent insurrection. We have, except in the most extraordinary cases, more than adequate redress through the courts and the ordinary law-making and political processes. When those processes fail — or more often, have a tin ear — then nonviolent protest, one tool of which is nonviolent civil disobedience, has the power to change hearts and minds (as the Black Lives Matter movement is, indeed, doing right now) and bring about political change. Do I _utterly_ reject the possibility of armed rebellion to bring about political change? No, but we are so far from even possibly needing it at this point that I feel that it is irresponsible to spend any time discussing it because it encourages acts of violence by individuals who are unable or willing to see that a theoretical discussion of the matter for use in the gravest extreme is not an incitement or invitation to put it into practice.
@Paul: You know those folks who complain that the Supreme Court is just making stuff up when they make decisions like Roe (abortion) and Obergefell (gay marriage)? If doing things on the basis of natural rights is a proper, normal, and everyday way of making decisions in the US, then the Court could have just avoided all the involved legal analysis and appeal to precedent in those cases and proclaimed “Hey, natural right!” And that’s the problem with so-called natural rights: they’re largely in the eye of the beholder. I can absolutely assure you that what I consider to be my natural rights are different from what you consider to be your natural rights, regardless of if (or which) deities I may or may not believe in.
(Accidentally hit the submit button, continuing my response to Paul:)
That’s one reason we have a Constitution and its Bill of Rights, to establish that we are a nation of laws, not individuals who get to decide for themselves what laws to follow and which to disregard.
@ Dave (the Liberal non-Uncle one) Says:
Ahhh, I see it now!!!
It is Alright for any Black, or Islamic, group to USE VIOLENCE to bring about “Change” in America, BUT If any other Group wants to USE VIOLENCE to bring about “Change” to our Country, based on “God’s 10 Commandments”, that is wrong, foolish, unfair, and “Not to be tolerated”, or even Discussed, Although when America’s Founding Fathers did that very thing, it resulted in the “World’s Most Powerful” Nation, and lasted 240 years, before people with your different belief,s managed to “Change” it, to meet their belief system.
And that is now resulting in a Totally Bankrupt America, that will surely be conquered by one of the Worlds Dictatorship’s, if not by the Middle Eastern Islamic Muslim Jihadists Nations, who will murder all Americans, except those few they need to to make themselves even bigger, and more Powerful, or for their own sexual gratification!
Glad that I most likely won’t be around to suffer from the New America you seem to be espousing!
Not only that, but I’m guessing that there will be no place for you, in this new Utopia, when it Finishes Consuming the old America either.
Paul
@Paul: Wow. Have you actually read _anything_ I’ve previously written here? Since your post is based on the utterly false and, indeed, bewildering proposition that I support the use of violence by some groups, there’s nothing else in your post to comment upon.
And just a technical point to everyone to make the record clear: Paul started his post “@ Dave (the Liberal non-Uncle one) Says:” I did _not_ say anything that follows that statement and that post mischaracterizes and misinterprets what I did say.
@ Paul Edwards:
No need to get too upset with our friend, Liberal Dave’s, fixed views on the BLM movement. The leftist mode of thought, to which he is prisoner, forces his responses.
You see, all leftist thought is based upon the same subconscious assumption. This assumption is:
All Humans are innately good.
This axiom directly leads to the belief that all of the world’s evils flow from external social forces or environmental factors outside of humanity. All left-wing movements proceed along the following path:
1) An external social force or environmental factor is identified as a source of social evil.
2) A utopian vision is advanced whereby a “better world” is envisioned by the elimination or mitigation of this negative external factor.
3) This vision is sold (marketed) to other left-wing minded individuals in order to build an activist movement to enforce the mitigation plan that is proposed to provide a path to the offered utopian vision.
4) If the movement becomes strong enough, it will force the implementation of the mitigation plan by law or by force. Opponents who do not share the utopian vision are demonized and criminalized.
5) In extreme cases, the movement becomes totally frustrated at any opposition and tries to crush it. The result is often widespread human rights violations, war and (in very extreme cases) genocide.
All left-wing movements follow the above pattern. Examples would be the various communist movements, the Prohibition of Alcohol, the current Gun Control movement in the U.S. and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. Our friend Liberal Dave has clearly bought into the utopian vision that BLM is selling. He believes in their mitigation plan. BLM has identified police racism as the external social force to be blamed for the conflicts between the police and the African American community. Their stated purpose is to reduce or eliminate this racism.
When you suggest that factors other than racism may be at fault, when you suggest that African American males are at least partly responsible for this conflict, you are shifting the blame from the comfortable social force and placing it directly upon a group of humans. This violates the most basic tenet of leftist thought that “All Humans are innately good”. Naturally, Liberal Dave rejects this out-of-hand. It violates the faith. It violates his leftist belief system.
You see both the extreme left-wing and right-wing worldviews form boxes for the mind (mind-prisons). These boxes limit thought and direct it down a single path with no option to turn aside.
It reminds me of a line from the movie “The Shawshank Redemption” (Great movie, BTW). In this movie, one character, “Red” Redding, is discussing the mental effect of long-term imprisonment. Speaking of the gray stone walls of Shawshank Prison, Red says:
“I tell you these walls are funny. At first, you hate them. After a while, you grow use to them. Finally, after you have been here long enough, you start to depend upon them. That’s institutionalized!”
A similar thing happens to the mind-prisons of extreme left-wing or right-wing thought. The afflicted individual becomes dependent upon the left-wing or right-wing world view. Such is the case with our friend Liberal Dave and his left-wing world view of the BLM movement. He is an “institutional man” now.
TN_MAN,
Your listing of the 5 methods used by “left-wing movements” was very interesting to me. I don’t believe I have ever seen them listed as such and thank you for sharing them.
My only slight degree of hesitation would be in accepting them only as “left-wing”, as I can see the same methods used by ALL parties who wish to pass rules governing the peaceful actions of others, often called “victimless crimes” but more properly called “mala prohibita” laws. The examples you listed “communist movements, the Prohibition of Alcohol, the current Gun Control movement in the U.S.” are excellent examples of this but so are, drug laws, asset forfeiture, concealed carry, helmet laws, raw milk and hair braiding laws, just to mention a few. They are all examples of using the techniques you described to pass laws of control (mala prohibita), where there is no real victim, except one imagined or manufactured by the state. You later called them “institutional” thoughts and I believe you are dead on in using this term. They are about supporting the “institution” of government and the control of the citizens.
The unfortunate aspect of these spurious rules, decreed from on high to be to the benefit of all and which all must obey, is that the only people who put their lives on the line to enforce them, are LEO’s, formerly called Peace Officers before they were charged with controlling the non violent actions of the population. This has led to LEO’s being considered “Bad Guys” by both the “left”, “right” and “middle”, depending on which law they are attempting to enforce . They are caught in a position that is unwinnable because of the enforcement tasks they are given by politicians, tyrants and do-gooders, all of whom use the techniques you described.
Removing ALL of these tyrannical rules/laws from our nation and returning LEO’s to Peace Officers, would be a MAJOR step in restoring peace and justice to America and returning Peace Officers to their righteous roles as Honored Public Servants.
That is why, in my first post, I believe that almost all attempts I have heard, on this forum and in the MSM, to discern the reasons we have found ourselves in today, MISSES the point. It’s not racism, blacks, cops, guns, procedures or techniques. It’s the proliferation of laws enacted against non-violent, no victim, crimes. Actually, there is a victim. It is America.
@ TN_MAN Says:
Thanks again, for another great lesson on who, and what, the “Left Wing” is, and how they perceive the world is/should be.
No, I’m comfortable with my views of America, and our Constitutional, Representative Form of Government.
Now, if we could only figure out a way, like maybe dog type electronic collar, that would give them a painful reminder, each, and every, time they do something that “Violates Their Sworn Oath of Office”?
BTW I loved Trump’s Nomination Acceptance speech, last night! Over an hour, and he touched on just about everything that is wrong with America’s Government, and how he would FIX it, at least in General Terms. If he lives to be elected (In spite of the Democratic ACORN VOTE FRAUD Usage), it will be interesting to see how he accomplishes his Promises, without bending, or breaking, the Constitution worse than it already has been?
Paul
@ Tahn:
The steps undertaken by extremist right-wing groups vary somewhat from those taken by the left. Right-wing individuals make a subconscious assumption, about human behavior, that is 180 degrees opposite from the one made by left-wing individuals. A right-wing individual assumes:
All humans are innately evil.
This directly leads to a world-view whereby evil springs directly from evil people (the human heart) rather than from external social factors. It leads to the view that a moral code and discipline must be imposed upon people to motivate them to behave contrary to their evil natures. To motivate them to be moral. To motivate them to be good thereby eliminating evil from the world.
Oppressive right-wing movement proceed down the following path:
1) A segment of the population is identified as being immoral and out-of-control. Very often, this segment is selected based upon nationalistic, racial or religious characteristics.
2) A utopian vision is advanced whereby a “better world” is envisioned by imposition of a moral code upon this immoral segment and bringing them “into line” with the applicable right-wing ideology.
3) This vision is sold (marketed) to other right-wing minded individuals in order to build a movement to enforce the moral-correction plan that is proposed to provide a path to the offered utopian vision.
4) If the movement becomes strong enough, it will force the implementation of the moral-correction plan by law or by force. The identified immoral population segment (and any other opponents who do not share the utopian vision) are demonized and criminalized.
5) In extreme cases, the movement becomes totally frustrated at any opposition and tries to crush it. The result is often widespread human rights violations, war and (in very extreme cases) genocide.
As you can see, it does not really matter whether one follows the extreme left-wing path or the extreme right-wing path. Both paths lead to the same destination. It is totalitarianism. The leftists create a world whereby they have total control over each person’s environment. This is the ultimate “nanny state”. They want to tell you what to eat, how to dress, how to raise your children, what you can buy, where you can work, where you can live, etc. etc. etc. In other words, total control over each individual by means of total control over his environment. Ultimately, they want to control what you think (political correctness).
The extreme right-wing dispenses with environmental control in favor of going for direct control over each individual. They simply lay down the law and the rules and if you dare to step out-of-line then the secret police show up for you and that is that. A direct totalitarian state rather than an extreme nanny-state.
World War II provided an example of these extremes. On the left-hand, you had the communist State of the USSR under the Dictator Joe Stalin. On the right-hand, you had the Nazi State of Germany under the Dictator Adolf Hitler. Both of them demonstrating the different flavors of extremist thought.
It is really too bad that Hitler did not just attack the USSR directly. The West could have just sat back and let the totalitarian States destroy each other and good riddance! Unfortunately, Hitler attacked Europe first thereby forcing England and the U.S. to side with the USSR to defeat him. This left the extreme left-wing State intact thereby directly leading to the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, plus a host of others.
Sadly, humans seem incapable of learning from history. You still have vast numbers of people who flock to extreme left-wing and right-wing movements. In the U.S., we have internal left-wing oppressive movements, like Gun Control and BLM, still in operation. Overseas, we have the extreme right-wing, religious-based ISIS movement spreading terrorism all around the world. I keep hoping that the human race will finally wise-up and say to hell with all of these left-wing and right-wing oppressive-control movements. We are a free people!
Unfortunately, it seems that each generation is “born stupid” and must repeat the same old mistakes!
TN_MAN,
I am again indebted for your counsel and knowledge in the manner of controlling individuals in either a “left wing” or “right wing” society, which America seems caught in the middle of. Thank you!
I will be studying these techniques in order to properly offer counter measures, especially as it relates to mala prohibita rules that both “sides” have inaugurated and have charged our American police officers with enforcing. I especially notice that point 4 of BOTH, is the implementation of “laws” or rules of “victimless crimes” that enforce whatever reasoning the left/right totalitarians come up with. This is what I so avidly wish to communicate to ALL Law Enforcement professionals, that they are caught in the middle, between two opposing philosophies, that both sides are using Police Officers to implement their directives and for those officers caught in this morass of modern totalitarian law, there is no hope for them. They will ALWAYS be perceived as the bad guys, from whatever perspective they are viewed, left, right or middle, even if they , hopefully, survive the rage either side throws at them.
This is why I feel it is critical, that all Police Officers, STOP enforcing these unconstitutional totalitarian left/right edicts, including those myriad revenue collection rules and return to being Peace Officers, only enforcing those mala in se laws that are neutral in “protecting the rights of everyone from the equal rights of everyone else” as Mr. Jefferson said. At the least I would like to steer the discussion toward this avenue, rather than the misguided (but often sincere) views I see aimed towards everything else, from race, techniques, procedures, guns or whatever misdirection the MSM throws at us.
I would appreciate your views on this possible solution and any other insights you might wish to share, both on the cause and/or the effects but most importantly, the solution. Thank you again for your input and knowledge shared.
TN_MAN,
You may enjoy this –
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/the_rise_of_the_moral_narcissists.html
@ Dennis:
Thank you for the link to the American Thinker article. The views in this article attempt to search out the truth but, still, somewhat miss the mark. For example, consider this quote:
“Moral narcissism … is a way of explaining away evil, blaming all ills on social causes and therefore pushing back the necessity of examining the human soul or one’s own, of not seeing the possible darkness within[.] … [M]oral narcissism obscures reality and therefore threatens democracy. That not everything is perfectible, that there is evil in the world, and that evil is likely to remain forever.”
The article advances the theory that a generation of left-wing activists, born roughly during the time of WW II, originated this “moral narcissism” worldview so as to explain away evil and avoid examining the human soul. This is not accurate. All leftist thought is based upon the axiom that “All humans are innately good” (as I noted in my previous post). The “moral narcissism” discussed in the article arises naturally from this axiom. Therefore, leftists have always held this view of humanity. It is not something invented by the WW II generation. They were merely adherents of this leftist worldview and acted to advance the leftist cause. Leftists in previous and future generations think the same. Karl Marx, for example, was born long before WW II (1818 to be exact) and his leftist theories helped cause WW II.
This article tries to understand leftist thought but its assessment still only sees the surface of leftist actions. It does not truly get to their motivations.
@ Tahn:
Developing “counter-measures” to the destructive cycle of left-wing / right-wing conflict is very difficult because this cycle is driven by a couple of quirks of human psychology.
Psychologists used to believe, based upon the writings of Sigmund Freud, that sex was the primary driver of human psychology. Freud was completely wrong about this. The primary driver of human psychology is knowledge of our own mortality. Even our sexual actions are driven by it. Why do some people engage in promiscuous sex or other forms of pleasure seeking such as drug and alcohol abuse? The answer is to live and enjoy life before death comes to claim them. What about the more healthy forms of sex such as finding a life-partner and raising a family? The answer is to find a form of immortality and “live on” in the lives of one’s offspring. So sex, itself, is merely a reaction to human knowledge of our own mortality rather than a source of behavior.
Knowledge of mortality is also the driver of war and politics. Knowing that we all shall die motivates some people to seek immortality in power and fame. As I noted in a previous post, they want the ego-trip of living a life of significance. Everyone would like to live a life that “changes the world for the better”. This provides a powerful motivation for people to buy into the Utopian promises that are sold by left-wing and right-wing activist movements. Join us, they say, and be somebody. Join us and change the world. Isn’t this the call from every one of these groups from Communism, to Nazism, to modern gun control, to ISIS? All these groups are driven by the human ego in an effort to write each member’s name into the history books.
The second psychological driver is the tendency of the human mind to make simplifying assumptions when confronted by complex problems. The human brain is literally “wired” for pattern recognition and analysis. Because mankind depended upon “thinking” for our very existence, humans have been programmed this way by evolution.
If one wants to come up with a plan that will “change the world” and “change human history” then one must understand human behavior as a first step to developing this plan of action. However, human behavior is very complex. Therefore, there is a very strong temptation to make a “simplifying assumption” so as to reduce the problem to an understandable and controllable level. This is exactly what those on the left and the right do. They assume “All humans are innately good” or “All humans are innately evil” as their basic axioms to build their ideologies. These simplifying assumptions are not very accurate and they lead to erroneous policies but the natural human tendency is to make them anyway because they greatly simplify building a consistent ideology.
So, the only real “counter-measure” would be to educate the entire human race as to the faults caused by these quirks of human psychology and to train people to fight their own nature and their own ego so as to avoid continuation of this destructive conflict. Good luck with that! In this sense, the human race is literally “programmed for self-destruction” by human psychology.
It reminds me of a passage from the Bible (Genesis, Chapter 2, Verses 15 to 17):
“And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
TN_MAN and All Other officers,
Your answer was both illuminative and discouraging but I thank you for it. I received the impression that you feel, there is little hope for mankind. That may be true according to both biblical and modern psychological tenants but I for one, am raging against the storm.
I wish to find a modern solution, not to all of mankind’s evil but to ONE seemingly simple abuse that has permeated modern society and caused much misery, death and yes, evil. This evil is caused by both, the left’s belief, that “All men are good” (and who wish to implement that belief in controlling “mala prohibita” laws) and also the right’s belief that “all men are evil” (and also wish to control mans evil impulses by these same “mala prohibita” laws). I say, in my simple narrative, “A pox on both their houses”.
It is, in my opinion, the unfortunate position of the modern LEO that he or she is required to enforce both of these opposite philosophies by their “enforcement powers” as is practiced by the modern police state. I say “enforcement powers” rather than “rights of enforcement” because I believe these powers are not consistent with the Constitution or the Bill of Rights and have gradually increased over the decades, until the original meaning of “equality under the law” has lost all of its original meaning the founding fathers gave it.
The one group suffering the most are minorities, because they have the least to say in implementing these “mala prohibita” rules and yet they suffer the most from their implementation. The smallest minority of all and those most threatened with harm, are the men and women of the thin blue line, the American Peace Officers. At least they were Peace Officers, before they became Law Enforcers. They are still the smallest minority by far and are caught in the middle. In the minds of many of the public, they are the evil ones, because of what they are being required to attempt which is the control of peoples actions and habits, even when those actions or habits, threaten no one, harm no one else but are merely perceived by either the right or left as being somehow a benefit, although many times the benefit is a monetary reward to the communities or politicians who pass these scurrilous rules of control.
My desire is to have all law officers, recognize that they are being used, recognize that they are violating the basic tenants of the Supreme Law of the Land and REFUSE to further enforce these evil, unconstitutional “mala prohibita”, victimless dictates. At the very least, I hope to further a discussion of this basic concept among the men and women it affects the most, The Thin Blue Line of American Law Enforcement.
Officers, are you awake out there? Are you understanding that, IMHO, you are being used? Are you seeing that YOU are the ones being put in the middle? Please respond by sharing with your brothers and sisters, your thoughts, ideas, concerns and prayers for our great country. Please start the conversation among yourselves with honest dialog and informed thoughts and ideas.
Mas (and BHM), Thank You for allowing me this opportunity to express my own concerns and thoughts on what I believe, is THE major internal problem facing our great country! May God Bless America, May God Bless The Citizens of this Great Country and May God Bless, The Thin Blue Line.
Comments are closed.