Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cops could not do their job if their authority was not respected. You can chalk it up to fear, to blind obedience to authority, or to genuine respect, but without the ability to get people to do as they are told, all semblance of order and safety would be lost. No one in a position of authority likes to dwell on this, but authority/respect is a two way street, and when the "underlings" stop playing the game, you're toast. This applies to dictators as well as Little League coaches and high school English teachers. It engenders the most primal, immediate PANIC. So you're right, it is a very personal thing, but also a primary requirement of the job.
Where do you get the impression that cops want "personal respect" without earning it? That they are as a group self-centered, inferiority complex men and women? Do you think this is why unarmed civilians are being killed? Because they didn't address the cop as "sir"? Where is this coming from? A personal experience the rest of us have not shared?Cops could not do their job if their authority was not respected. You can chalk it up to fear, to blind obedience to authority, or to genuine respect, but without the ability to get people to do as they are told, all semblance of order and safety would be lost. No one in a position of authority likes to dwell on this, but authority/respect is a two way street, and when the "underlings" stop playing the game, you're toast. This applies to dictators as well as Little League coaches and high school English teachers. It engenders the most primal, immediate PANIC. So you're right, it is a very personal thing, but also a primary requirement of the job.I cannot agree with this. Citizens must RESPECT THE LAW, not necessarily respect the policeman on the beat. THAT is the issue. Cops want personal respect without earning it. It looks to me that cops get their nose bent out of shape if you don't address them as 'sir'. Why should you address them 'sir'? You are paying their salary. It's a good start if they address you as 'sir' but you replying in kind is optional.
In the final analysis it looks to me that self-centered, inferiority complex men and women dominate (or are beginning to dominate) the police force. Police consider it a 'good day' if they've arrested 'bad guys'. What happened to a 'good day' being one when peace prevailed and no crime was committed? Is the police force working a quota system..... or payed by piece work?
There's too much grey area for that. I'd just like to know why the fact that many of these were clearly resisting arrest is so rarely addressed, especially on that "side". It may just be the standard politically-motivated dishonesty, but I do have to wonder if it's an acceptable behavior within the culture....... The "trend" to which I refer is the fact that so many of the Black Americans shot were resisting arrest at the time. Had they not resisted arrest, it's likely they'd be alive right now.Am I the only one on the forum who has the idea that 'resisting arrest' is a capital offence in the US? In more civilized nations 'resisting arrest' and 'getting away' is taken with a sigh and, "Oh well, we'll get him next time."
.
Cops could not do their job if their authority was not respected. You can chalk it up to fear, to blind obedience to authority, or to genuine respect, but without the ability to get people to do as they are told, all semblance of order and safety would be lost. No one in a position of authority likes to dwell on this, but authority/respect is a two way street, and when the "underlings" stop playing the game, you're toast. This applies to dictators as well as Little League coaches and high school English teachers. It engenders the most primal, immediate PANIC. So you're right, it is a very personal thing, but also a primary requirement of the job."You" who? Do you mean me? Do you mean someone other than me? I'm not sure of whom you're referring.I didn't really give it too much thought. I suppose that I ought have said "one".
Furthermore, on USMB, I've observed countless instances of folks focusing on what someone does not say more so than on what the writer did say.
I often try to explain by asking what it means to say, "I don't believe in God" and too often people don't understand the difference between "not believing" and "disbelieving" ..... even after a lengthy discussion on the subject they still don't get it.
I agree that binary modes of thought are pervasive in the U.S. and ineptly applied to all sorts of things, including the example situation you described. Reading around on this forum, one sees daily illustrations of folks interpreting remarks as though they are "either or" expressions of thought, yet quite often a simple duality is unsupported by the remark.
I'm sure folks think they are making logical inferences and extrapolations of the ideas expressed, but that's not how one rationally develops inferences. To do that one must take what is said and carry it forward, not take what is said and "flip" it to what was not said or to what is one of its contrary ideas.
I wish I knew why folks do that, but I don't. Were I to speculate on why, I'd say they see themselves as following George W. Bush's example from his 9/11 speech when he said one is with the U.S. or against it and that there's no in-between. I suspect that basic theme is what drives the mentality of most "average" Americans and certainly police officers, who unfortunately are not, IMO and generally, "above average" logicians.It's a great pleasure to read someone with a deeper understanding than simply "with you" or "against you". I'm getting tired of reading 'Leftist!' 'Liberal!' 'Conservative!' 'Typical Democrat!' 'Typical Republican!' "Hater!'
So, it is my fundamental belief that the problem with American police is this fixation with RESPECT. They think their uniform demands respect ... and it is a VERY PERSONAL thing with them .... it has nothing to do with their duties. It is taught early on that a child should respect his parents, but the idea that parents ought to deserve respect by example (rather than by fear of a spanking) seems to have gone amiss. The police are taking that misconception with them to work.
Nasty, dishonest straw man questions such as this are perfect illustrations of the problem, and a clear example of why people like this must somehow be culturally marginalized before any healing or progress can begin....why do you feel that resisting arrest is a good enough reason to be shot and killed?
I am supportive of the Black Lives Matter movement,
No racial bias in police shootings, study by (a Black) Harvard professor shows
Where do you get the impression that cops want "personal respect" without earning it? That they are as a group self-centered, inferiority complex men and women? Do you think this is why unarmed civilians are being killed? Because they didn't address the cop as "sir"? .....Cops could not do their job if their authority was not respected. You can chalk it up to fear, to blind obedience to authority, or to genuine respect, but without the ability to get people to do as they are told, all semblance of order and safety would be lost. No one in a position of authority likes to dwell on this, but authority/respect is a two way street, and when the "underlings" stop playing the game, you're toast. This applies to dictators as well as Little League coaches and high school English teachers. It engenders the most primal, immediate PANIC. So you're right, it is a very personal thing, but also a primary requirement of the job.I cannot agree with this. Citizens must RESPECT THE LAW, not necessarily respect the policeman on the beat. THAT is the issue. Cops want personal respect without earning it. It looks to me that cops get their nose bent out of shape if you don't address them as 'sir'. Why should you address them 'sir'? You are paying their salary. It's a good start if they address you as 'sir' but you replying in kind is optional.
In the final analysis it looks to me that self-centered, inferiority complex men and women dominate (or are beginning to dominate) the police force. Police consider it a 'good day' if they've arrested 'bad guys'. What happened to a 'good day' being one when peace prevailed and no crime was committed? Is the police force working a quota system..... or payed by piece work?
... using lethal force is not the way to obtain that respect. What that behavior does is earn people's fear, not respect.
... reacting by killing folks who do not show what one thinks is the respect one is due is not part of the job. Responding that way is the law enforcement officer's own failure to effectively manage his/her emotions, yet doing exactly that is part of what they are paid to do in exercising their duty.
I haven't a speck of disagreement with anything you said. I was responding to what seemed a strangely naive post that cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to comply with them. Perhaps I misread that.Cops could not do their job if their authority was not respected. You can chalk it up to fear, to blind obedience to authority, or to genuine respect, but without the ability to get people to do as they are told, all semblance of order and safety would be lost. No one in a position of authority likes to dwell on this, but authority/respect is a two way street, and when the "underlings" stop playing the game, you're toast. This applies to dictators as well as Little League coaches and high school English teachers. It engenders the most primal, immediate PANIC. So you're right, it is a very personal thing, but also a primary requirement of the job."You" who? Do you mean me? Do you mean someone other than me? I'm not sure of whom you're referring.I didn't really give it too much thought. I suppose that I ought have said "one".
Furthermore, on USMB, I've observed countless instances of folks focusing on what someone does not say more so than on what the writer did say.
I often try to explain by asking what it means to say, "I don't believe in God" and too often people don't understand the difference between "not believing" and "disbelieving" ..... even after a lengthy discussion on the subject they still don't get it.
I agree that binary modes of thought are pervasive in the U.S. and ineptly applied to all sorts of things, including the example situation you described. Reading around on this forum, one sees daily illustrations of folks interpreting remarks as though they are "either or" expressions of thought, yet quite often a simple duality is unsupported by the remark.
I'm sure folks think they are making logical inferences and extrapolations of the ideas expressed, but that's not how one rationally develops inferences. To do that one must take what is said and carry it forward, not take what is said and "flip" it to what was not said or to what is one of its contrary ideas.
I wish I knew why folks do that, but I don't. Were I to speculate on why, I'd say they see themselves as following George W. Bush's example from his 9/11 speech when he said one is with the U.S. or against it and that there's no in-between. I suspect that basic theme is what drives the mentality of most "average" Americans and certainly police officers, who unfortunately are not, IMO and generally, "above average" logicians.It's a great pleasure to read someone with a deeper understanding than simply "with you" or "against you". I'm getting tired of reading 'Leftist!' 'Liberal!' 'Conservative!' 'Typical Democrat!' 'Typical Republican!' "Hater!'
So, it is my fundamental belief that the problem with American police is this fixation with RESPECT. They think their uniform demands respect ... and it is a VERY PERSONAL thing with them .... it has nothing to do with their duties. It is taught early on that a child should respect his parents, but the idea that parents ought to deserve respect by example (rather than by fear of a spanking) seems to have gone amiss. The police are taking that misconception with them to work.
Red:
Agreed, however, people in authority using lethal force is not the way to obtain that respect. What that behavior does is earn people's fear, not respect. The two are not the same things. Living in fear of law enforcers is not what was ever meant to be something that happens in the U.S., yet it is exactly what has come to be for a material segment of our society.
To the extent we are talking about black people, we have witnessed before and for years on end the consequences of "being black while interacting with a law enforcement" personnel.
- Jesse Thornton
- ISIS Papers
- Projection
- Nikole Hannah-Jones
- Police Killings Surpass the Worst Years of Lynching, Capital Punishment, and a Movement Responds | Huffington Post
- Brief history of lynching
- Lake Michigan
- Emmett Till
Blue:
Yes, but reacting by killing folks who do not show what one thinks is the respect one is due is not part of the job. Responding that way is the law enforcement officer's own failure to effectively manage his/her emotions, yet doing exactly that is part of what they are paid to do in exercising their duty. Like it or not, there is not only an expectation, but also a requirement that cops are "better than average" at doing that. One can debate all day how one obtains a police force comprised of individuals who do that effectively and consistently, but cops must nonetheless exercise that level of restraint in order to do their jobs. Individuals who cannot exercise it do not belong on the police force.
Nasty, dishonest straw man questions such as this are perfect illustrations of the problem, and a clear example of why people like this must somehow be culturally marginalized before any healing or progress can begin....why do you feel that resisting arrest is a good enough reason to be shot and killed?
"Honesty please", indeed.
.
I haven't a speck of disagreement with anything you said. I was responding to what seemed a strangely naive post that cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to comply with them. Perhaps I misread that.Cops could not do their job if their authority was not respected. You can chalk it up to fear, to blind obedience to authority, or to genuine respect, but without the ability to get people to do as they are told, all semblance of order and safety would be lost. No one in a position of authority likes to dwell on this, but authority/respect is a two way street, and when the "underlings" stop playing the game, you're toast. This applies to dictators as well as Little League coaches and high school English teachers. It engenders the most primal, immediate PANIC. So you're right, it is a very personal thing, but also a primary requirement of the job."You" who? Do you mean me? Do you mean someone other than me? I'm not sure of whom you're referring.I didn't really give it too much thought. I suppose that I ought have said "one".
Furthermore, on USMB, I've observed countless instances of folks focusing on what someone does not say more so than on what the writer did say.
I often try to explain by asking what it means to say, "I don't believe in God" and too often people don't understand the difference between "not believing" and "disbelieving" ..... even after a lengthy discussion on the subject they still don't get it.
I agree that binary modes of thought are pervasive in the U.S. and ineptly applied to all sorts of things, including the example situation you described. Reading around on this forum, one sees daily illustrations of folks interpreting remarks as though they are "either or" expressions of thought, yet quite often a simple duality is unsupported by the remark.
I'm sure folks think they are making logical inferences and extrapolations of the ideas expressed, but that's not how one rationally develops inferences. To do that one must take what is said and carry it forward, not take what is said and "flip" it to what was not said or to what is one of its contrary ideas.
I wish I knew why folks do that, but I don't. Were I to speculate on why, I'd say they see themselves as following George W. Bush's example from his 9/11 speech when he said one is with the U.S. or against it and that there's no in-between. I suspect that basic theme is what drives the mentality of most "average" Americans and certainly police officers, who unfortunately are not, IMO and generally, "above average" logicians.It's a great pleasure to read someone with a deeper understanding than simply "with you" or "against you". I'm getting tired of reading 'Leftist!' 'Liberal!' 'Conservative!' 'Typical Democrat!' 'Typical Republican!' "Hater!'
So, it is my fundamental belief that the problem with American police is this fixation with RESPECT. They think their uniform demands respect ... and it is a VERY PERSONAL thing with them .... it has nothing to do with their duties. It is taught early on that a child should respect his parents, but the idea that parents ought to deserve respect by example (rather than by fear of a spanking) seems to have gone amiss. The police are taking that misconception with them to work.
Red:
Agreed, however, people in authority using lethal force is not the way to obtain that respect. What that behavior does is earn people's fear, not respect. The two are not the same things. Living in fear of law enforcers is not what was ever meant to be something that happens in the U.S., yet it is exactly what has come to be for a material segment of our society.
To the extent we are talking about black people, we have witnessed before and for years on end the consequences of "being black while interacting with a law enforcement" personnel.
- Jesse Thornton
- ISIS Papers
- Projection
- Nikole Hannah-Jones
- Police Killings Surpass the Worst Years of Lynching, Capital Punishment, and a Movement Responds | Huffington Post
- Brief history of lynching
- Lake Michigan
- Emmett Till
Blue:
Yes, but reacting by killing folks who do not show what one thinks is the respect one is due is not part of the job. Responding that way is the law enforcement officer's own failure to effectively manage his/her emotions, yet doing exactly that is part of what they are paid to do in exercising their duty. Like it or not, there is not only an expectation, but also a requirement that cops are "better than average" at doing that. One can debate all day how one obtains a police force comprised of individuals who do that effectively and consistently, but cops must nonetheless exercise that level of restraint in order to do their jobs. Individuals who cannot exercise it do not belong on the police force.
No reason to try to communicate with someone like you.Nasty, dishonest straw man questions such as this are perfect illustrations of the problem, and a clear example of why people like this must somehow be culturally marginalized before any healing or progress can begin....why do you feel that resisting arrest is a good enough reason to be shot and killed?
"Honesty please", indeed.
.
Awwwww. I hurt your feelings. My bad.
You have stated over and over that these people would be alive if only they had a culture that taught them not to resist arrest and that this is EQUALLY to blame for the problem.
What else are we to infer?
You failed to respond to the post, by the way.
Also....were you being honest or nasty when you blamed ME for police officers being killed? Speak on that for a moment.
I was responding to what seemed a strangely naive post that cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to comply with them. ....
Citizens must RESPECT THE LAW,
not necessarily respect the policeman on the beat.
Okay. I don't really think this has a lot to do with the current concern about use of deadly force by police, but the underlying attitude that black communities have for law enforcement in general may.I was responding to what seemed a strangely naive post that cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to comply with them. ....You misunderstood me. What I said was ......
Citizens must RESPECT THE LAW,
not necessarily respect the policeman on the beat..... or to formulate it in the terms you prefer ...... Citizens must respect and conform with the law, BUT cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to conform with their ego.
Resisting arrest is not a good enough reason in and of its self for a cop to kill someone. That being said, the orders a cop gives someone is for both the safety of the cop and the person being detained. If the person being detained does not follow the cop's orders, then the cop cannot know with certainty what the person's intentions are. This exponentially increases the chances that the cop will be forced into a situation of making a split second decision that could be deadly.
I posted this video earlier in this thread, but I think it needs repeating here. Resisting arrest is not a capital crime, but police do have the right to protect themselves. Don't force police to make a deadly split second decision.
Resisting arrest is not a good enough reason in and of its self for a cop to kill someone. That being said, the orders a cop gives someone is for both the safety of the cop and the person being detained. If the person being detained does not follow the cop's orders, then the cop cannot know with certainty what the person's intentions are. This exponentially increases the chances that the cop will be forced into a situation of making a split second decision that could be deadly.
I posted this video earlier in this thread, but I think it needs repeating here. Resisting arrest is not a capital crime, but police do have the right to protect themselves. Don't force police to make a deadly split second decision.
Resisting arrest: refusing to allow hand-cuffs/ to turn with your back to the cops/to lie down, running away, etc. doesn't endanger anyone. And to claim those orders are to secure the safety of the person being detained is ridiculous. That's just cop talk.
IMHO, what you just said is ridiculous. If we cannot agree on this simple issue, we may as well agree to disagree. There is no point in continued discussion.
Okay. I don't really think this has a lot to do with the current concern about use of deadly force by police, but the underlying attitude that black communities have for law enforcement in general may.I was responding to what seemed a strangely naive post that cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to comply with them. ....You misunderstood me. What I said was ......
Citizens must RESPECT THE LAW,
not necessarily respect the policeman on the beat..... or to formulate it in the terms you prefer ...... Citizens must respect and conform with the law, BUT cops must first earn our respect before we should be expected to conform with their ego.
