National Review Wants Cops to Kill Civilians
Beware? (cc photo by jondoeforty1)
Via Ta-Nehisi Coates and Radley Balko, National Review offers us the appalling views of one LAPD officer:
So, since the president is keen on offering instruction, here is what I would advise he teach his Ivy League pals, and anyone else who may find himself unexpectedly confronted by a police officer: You may be as pure as the driven snow itself, but you have no idea what horrible crime that police officer might suspect you of committing. You may be tooling along on a Sunday drive in your 1932 Hupmobile when, quite unknown to you, someone else in a 1932 Hupmobile knocks off the nearby Piggly Wiggly. A passing police officer sees you and, asking himself how many 1932 Hupmobiles can there be around here, pulls you over. At that moment I can assure you the officer is not all that concerned with trying not to offend you. He is instead concerned with protecting his mortal hide from having holes placed in it where God did not intend. And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
The fact that African-American men are disproportionately likely to be put in this position, and that some police officers have this mentality, does a lot to explain the generalized distrust of cops by many people in that demographic.
Meanwhile: This is insane. Most people like and respect cops, and honor the work they do. But it’s a profession that’s honored precisely because the people doing the job correctly don’t do the job this way. Police officers, in the course of duty, subject themselves to extra-normal risk of harm for the sake of the welfare of others. This is the mentality of a foreign occupying army, not a well-functioning police force.
116 Responses to “National Review Wants Cops to Kill Civilians”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 29th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“This is the mentality of a foreign occupying army, not a well-functioning police force.”
It is the exact position we should expect from a police state with the highest incarceration rate in the world.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Uck, not to mention to swaggering machismo of “having such holes placed in your own.” Am I supposed to think you’re cool for having just shot a civilian, Officer?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
How 20th century – isn’t it all Tasers now, so therefore it’s ok?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
It’s all about holes, and who gets to penetrate who.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
This is exactly the point I made to people arguing in favor of the cops regarding Gatesgate. Even if we assume that the police report was completely accurate, which, as it turns out it wasn’t, the fact that Crowley arrested Gates AFTER having established that no break in was in progress is the most disturbing part.
I understand that Cops go into tense situations all the time and rightfully have their nerves on edge, but once you realize that whatever crime was being reported as a possibility wasn’t occurring, then you shouldn’t continue to act like you’re still in danger. If we can’t ask our Police to differentiate between a guy being grouchy in his own home and a guy holding a gun, then we’re not living in a free society.
The scary thing is, I don’t think people realize the logical conclusions of their argument. A world in which its ok for a cop to use a power (arresting people) that average citizens don’t have, when the person being arrested has done nothing more than wound your pride is a world in which Cops are allowed to use their power for personal, not social, good. Its one thing to say that its impossible to stamp out 100% of abuse by powerful people in every situation, but its another thing to say that we shouldn’t try our best to minimize it and that we shouldn’t criticize it when it occurs.
All these “libertarians” out there protesting taxes and government spending could stand to pay a little attention to how much power police have. Shouldn’t libertarians be troubled by an extension of the state having no problems with abusing their power?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Twenty bucks says the guy got an erection while writing that sentence. I wish these people would just go masturbate to Triumph of the Will and leave the rest of us alone.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Police officers, in the course of duty, subject themselves to extra-normal risk of harm for the sake of the welfare of others.
I think a big part of the problem is the unnecessary hero-worship of police, exhibited by this excerpt. Policing is simply not a very dangerous job, yet we seem to equate it with storming the beaches of Normandy. The fact is that you are more likely to be murdered as a fast-food employee than as a cop (and I don’t exactly hear a crescendo of plaudits for teens going to flip burgers).
There are countless other *very* dangerous jobs – often seemingly menial jobs like fishing, building and mining, that kill workers at a much higher rate than policing.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
And you, if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.
Similarly, if you show up to your 10th grade English class wearing a blouse that is too revealing, you run the risk of having your God-given holes violated by the instructor you provoked.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Matt,
You are such a child.
This quote from the cop is exactly what parents should teach their sons about how a cop thinks when he pulls them over.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
a) I’m pretty sure that the cirumstances described – a crime
committed by someone in a rare kind of car – would be
probable cause for a similar car to be stopped ? So it’s
a strawman.
b) Of course the damn cop shouldn’t shoot you for being
uncooperative. He shouldn’t shoot you for anything short
of violent behavior posing a serious threat to the police
or civilians. He shouldn’t shoot you for running away,
even.
c) Despite this bad attitude, we can’t blame cops for the
high incarceration rate. Our legislators pass a whole
lot of laws with custodial penalties; they also pass
laws restricting the discretion of judges over sentencing.
And they don’t appropriate much money for non-custodial
approaches (such as the Hawaiian strict-probation-with-
quick-punishment-for-violations scheme) which appears
highly effective (and even cost-effective).
d) In these hypothetical circumstances, and seemingly in the
Crowley/Gates affair, the big problem seems to be that
some cops expect you to offer slavish obedience to their
commands without offering any explanation of what’s
going on. That’s an unreasonable expectation in a
democracy: if you want cooperation, you’re gonna have to
ask nicely, and no, you can’t slap handcuffs on someone
merely for being unhelpful.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Aren’t these the same people who insist that people be able to own/carry firearms to protect against unreasonable police-state intrusion on personal liberties?
July 29th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I would give my kingdom to hear any conservative blabbermouth the following:
Let’s say Rush Limbaugh is going in and out of his New York appartment with some suspicious looking packages and strange people are coming in and leaving counting money. A neighbor calls the cops and reports this, thinking some illegal drugs are changing hands. A black cop arrives on the sceen Limbaugh shows the cop what is in the boxes (photos of himself he is autographing) and for some reason the cop isn’t satisfied. Limbaugh says something like “take the bone out of your noise boy, do you realize who you are dealing with?” The cop gets pissed and arrests Limbaugh. I challenge any conservative to tell me why this situation would be any different than the Gates situation and why they would have a problem with Limbaugh’s arrest if they didn’t have a problem with Gates. Or if it is Obama’s use of the word stupid they had a problem with, please explain the wisdom of this hypothetical black cop’s decision.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This is what the right to bear arms gets you. In civilized countries, where access to weapons is strictly controlled, the cop doesn’t expect ordinary people to be able to kill him with no warning. But in the US, every single interaction with a civilian is potentially lethal, and the cop would be insane to act otherwise.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This is the mentality of a foreign occupying army, not a well-functioning police force.
There is no difference between those two things. The role of the police is to keep a population subjugated to the interest of the ruling power. As “Discipline and Punish” will tell you, the primary strategy by which that is accomplished is to ensure that individuals police themselves, in this case by choosing not to assert their right to security of person from search, for fear of what will result. Anonymous police officers threatening violence from the safe vantage point of a right-wing website is quite consistent with the strategy of the domestic security apparatus since the dawn of civilization.
My only disagreement with Foucault is that he thought the whole thing just began in the eighteenth century.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
This quote from the cop is exactly what parents should teach their sons about how a cop thinks when he pulls them over.
Of course parents should teach this, because it is how a lot of cops think. Matt’s point was that it’s a really bad thing that a lot of cops think this way, and that the cops’ attitude going into situations like this often times is what escalates it and ends up with a needless arrest or someone getting hurt.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Aren’t these the same people who insist that people be able to own/carry firearms to protect against unreasonable police-state intrusion on other people’s personal liberties?
Fixed.
Perhaps we can have “Kiss The Whip” on our coinage instead of ‘E Pluribus Unum’. It’s in Latin, no one believes in it, and it’s sort of old-fashioned.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Oops my typing was ahead of my mental grammar check. The first sentence should read, I would give my kingdom to ASK any conservative blabbermouth the following:
My apologies.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
There are 200,000,000 guns floating around in America. Hence, cops are always going to think this way.
Matt should grow up.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Note that this might be an LA-specific sort of response. By recollection, LA’s police problems stem/med in part from the small size of the force relative to the population. So if you want to use the occupying force analogy, perhaps its more like the attitude of an undersized occupying force.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I am aware that my beliefs often not those of the majority. I guess that goes for feelings about cops, as well. I may respect them in the sense that, hey, they’ve got guns and you need to be careful around them, but I certainly don’t “like them.” I’ve never been charged with anything worse than a speeding ticket (nor have I committed any unpunished crimes that I can think of), but I have gut-based antipathy toward cops in general. I don’t like imposed authority, particularly that imposed with the threat of violence. Granted, I haven’t know many cops personally (I can think of only one off the top of my head), but I was in the military, and there is a similar testosterone-charged mindset (which I think is more appropriate to the military, but not so for being a civilian law authority).
July 29th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
That headline is pretty close to asking NR to sue you for libel.
Here is the followup to the original blog post if anyone cares:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDEyMDQ5NjYxMDlkNjI0NTJlYzdlZjliMTBlY2I3ZmE=
July 29th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Whoops. Unpunished crime I overlooked — smoking a joint. Don’t shoot!
July 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Look, the guys who want to become policemen are guys who like to have the upper hand. If they just wanted to help people and have everybody love them, they could have become firemen. So, you need to teach your sons the facts and their implications, which are: act deferential toward cops.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The job is a strange one which no doubt attracts a disproportionate percentage of people who really enjoy forcing others to submit. That said, you can’t have a functioning society without them. The same might be said for politicians.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Short test:
Did you scorn Henry Gates?
Did you howl over David Koresh?
Keep your answers to yourself and no cheating.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
he reasonably (albeit mistakenly) believed had just committed an armed robbery.
That was very reasonable of him. I guess all those “terrorists” the US tortured should realize we were just being reasonable. There was also a reasonable chance Saddam had WMDs, so I guess that makes the Iraq war a reasonably good idea. Also, all those banks leveraged 60-to-1 on “toxic waster” mortgage bonds had a reasonable reason to believe the housing market would just go up forever. It’s really a shame liberals don’t have any respect for reasonability.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
When in Los Angeles, almost this exact situation happened to me. I didn’t know that someone with my build and a similar skin color to me (perp was hispanic, I am half-asian) driving the same model car as I was (Blue/Grey Honda CRX) robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint a few blocks from where I was driving. Cops, create a roadblock with their cars and point guns at me. I follow every instruction to the letter — they handcuff me but tell me that I’m not under arrest (I’m still not sure what that means). Half an hour later they tell me that they caught the perp, and “I’m lucky that I didn’t rob the 7-11.” I ask for clarification, have they determined that I’m not guilty of any crime? No, they just have determined that I’m not guilty of the crime that was the reason for the stop. I ask to be unhandcuffed, they comply. I ask for them to announce to the crowd that was watching me on the bullhorns that they used to tell me to get out of my car, lay on the asphalt, put my hands on my head and lace my fingers together, etc. that I was not guilty of the crime for which they detained me. The officer declines, I ask for the officer’s badge number, the officer declines. I respectfully depart the scene and contact a lawyer. Two years later, a lawyer gets some money from the LAPD, and gives me 2/3rds of it.
So I agree, when you’re suspected of committing a crime, you need to be as pleasant and deferential as possible. But once you have been cleared, then the police need to likewise treat you with respect.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Will Allen says:
“The job is a strange one which no doubt attracts a disproportionate percentage of people who really enjoy forcing others to submit. That said, you can’t have a functioning society without them.”
Right.
Cops rely on either the cooperation of the citizenry, intimidation, or force. The more they get of cooperation, the less they need to threaten to harm people or to actually harm people.
It’s really not that complicated for anybody more mature and less sheltered than Matt.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
That headline is pretty close to asking NR to sue you for libel.
Ah yes, because in the original scenario, the anonymous cop was merely suggesting that if you drive the same car as someone who committed a violent crime (unbeknownst to you), you had better not try to prevent the cop from violating your rights or else face execution at the hands of the state. How exactly the suspect should have known that the policeman was chasing a violent criminal with the same car is, of course, left unknown. In practice, this boils down to the prescription: “whenever confronted by the police, do not protest anything they do or they may shoot you.”
The issue here is that when some people find out that the authorities are committing violent crimes, including rape and murder, in secret, they feel safer. Those people are called Republicans.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Re: A world in which its ok for a cop to use a power (arresting people) that average citizens don’t have, when the person being arrested has done nothing more than wound your pride is a world in which Cops are allowed to use their power for personal, not social, good.
Matt40,
The problem with your argument is that insulting and disrespecting cops is bad for society as well as bad for that particular cop. It undermines the reverence and respect that the police are due, and it damages the institutions of authority and deference that the human soul needs and craves. Sorry but I feel not a whit of sympathy for Professor Gates. Just who does more to keep society functioning: a hipster postmodernist professor of American Literature like Mr. Gates, or a man like Officer Crowley who spends his life combating rapists and drug dealers? In a healthy society Officer Crowley would be more respected and better paid than any number of American Literature professors.
While I don’t at all endorse what this LAPD officer says, I cannot feel bad that Professor Gates was forced to cool his heels in a lockup for the night. Boo f*cking hoo.
Re: I am aware that my beliefs often not those of the majority. I guess that goes for feelings about cops, as well. I may respect them in the sense that, hey, they’ve got guns and you need to be careful around them, but I certainly don’t “like them.” I’ve never been charged with anything worse than a speeding ticket (nor have I committed any unpunished crimes that I can think of), but I have gut-based antipathy toward cops in general. I don’t like imposed authority, particularly that imposed with the threat of violence.
Bragan,
My gut reaction is the exact opposite of yours, and I feel a visceral distaste for your attitude. I love cops, and when I see cops my first impulse is to offer to buy them a round of drinks and launch into a congratulate them on how they keep society safe from criminals and nihilist intellectuals intend on undermining our social morals. A healthy society would be one with a very heavy police presence and one in which the police were given deference and respect.
July 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
um, isn’t this the plot to “my cousin vinny”?
if they watched the movie to the end, which it doesn’t sound like they did, i think they will be surprised about what happens! not to give it away, but the karate kid and his pal don’t get executed because the police *gasp!* made a mistake. the police being fallible is a stretch to believe, i know…
July 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
That headline is pretty close to asking NR to sue you for libel.
Oh, okay. Don’t waste your energies here: tell the NR crowd!
July 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
This cop-speak sounds kinda bullshit to me. Like the military, they don’t operate on fear –they operate on planning, on tactics, and on capability.
1) When the cop pulls you over, he turns his car to a diagonal. That places the Crown Vic’s big ass engine between him and you, in case you have a weapon. Plus Crown Vic’s have Kelvar armor in the doors now.
2) He calls in your license plate and determines if you have a record.
3) He is approaching you from your rear, his partner is also covering you and the cop is wearing body armor that will stop almost all pistol caliber bullets.
4) Unless you are in a van and you have several terrorists with AK47s and grenades in the rear, I don’t see where he has all that much to worry about. If he is worried for some reason, he just waits 4 or 5 minutes for more of his buddies to show up. LA Cops are not like Montana State Highway officers — they have a shitload of reinforcements.
3)
July 29th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Obligatory Bill Hicks LAPD link (prob NSFW).
Matt should grow up.
And when he grows up, can he become a professional racial determinist like you, Popeye?
July 29th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Cops rely on either the cooperation of the citizenry, intimidation, or force. The more they get of cooperation, the less they need to threaten to harm people or to actually harm people.
It’s really not that complicated for anybody more mature and less sheltered than Matt.
I’m not sure that anyone disagrees with you, Sailer. Maybe I’m missing something, but I think what’s at issue is whether threats that you’ll get shot should be one of the tools of intimidation (rather than, say, an arrest that gets kicked). “I’ll arrest you” is very different, it seems to me, from “I’ll kill you.”
July 29th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
“if in asserting your constitutional right to be free from unlawful search and seizure fail to do as the officer asks, run the risk of having such holes placed in your own.”
To me, this is the operative phrase. Think about what this means. IF YOU ASSERT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, A COP MAY SHOOT YOU.
What the hell good is the Constitution if asserting your rights gets you shot by a cop? And this example was for squeaky-clean innocent people.
Damn, I suddenly have “The Clash” running through my head.
“You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman”
July 29th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Your analogies are comical. I refer you to Tennessee v. Garner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner
July 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
That headline is pretty close to asking NR to sue you for libel.
IIRC, you can’t libel a group.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
congratulate them on how they keep society safe from criminals and nihilist intellectuals intend on undermining our social morals
What our society obviously needs is a government agency aimed at rooting out the nihilist intellectuals who undermine social morals, fully empowered to use threats of violence if not violence itself.
I really do wonder where these people come from. Because it most definitely is not the United States of America.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
congratulate them on how they keep society safe from criminals and nihilist intellectuals intend on undermining our social morals
What our society obviously needs is a government agency aimed at rooting out the nihilist intellectuals who undermine social morals, fully empowered to use threats of violence if not violence itself.
I really do wonder where these people come from. Because it most definitely is not the United States of America.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
“There are 200,000,000 guns floating around in America. Hence, cops are always going to think this way.
Matt should grow up.”
Great logic here.
I never at any point suggested that cops should never be on edge or never use force. All I suggested is that cops should only use force if they truly believe that a threat is posed. Likewise, cops should only arrest someone if they believe a law has been broken.
In the case of Officer Crowley and Gates, when he arrested him he already knew that no crime was being committed, he knew that Gates was the resident of the home, not a possible burglary suspect. From that point on, its Crowley who should have been deferential. Cops do not have the right to arrest whomever they want. I realize thats not the way the real world works, but thats because people like you don’t have a problem with it.
We could do a lot to curb police misconduct. For starters, police departments could actually discipline Officers whom they believe arrested people without justification or used unnecessary force. This would send a message to Police that their power is something only to be exercised when needed, not when pissed off.
And you know what? We’d be just as safe, if not safer. Every other Western country in the world demands accountability from their police force. Good Police are respected public servants, but those who step out and use their power when there was no possible justification for its use are held to account. Their lower crime rates are certainly attributable to many other factors, but their experience would seemingly put to rest the idea that Police do a better job keeping us safe by acting imperiously.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Matt claims:
“This is insane. Most people like and respect cops, and honor the work they do. But it’s a profession that’s honored precisely because the people doing the job correctly don’t do the job this way. Police officers, in the course of duty, subject themselves to extra-normal risk of harm for the sake of the welfare of others.”
Ehhhh … I’d say most cops “subject themselves to extra-normal risk of harm for the sake of the welfare of others” for
- the paycheck
- the pension
- the occasional adrenalin rush
- the sense of dominance
- the respect and fear they engender
- the chance to bring bad guys to justice
with “the welfare of others” somewhere on that list but not too close to the top.
Matt, to educate yourself a little about how the real world works, try reading a few Joseph Wambaugh cop novels. You’ll learn that most cops aren’t heroes most of the time, and that they all think like this.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
try reading a few Joseph Wambaugh cop novels
Gawd knows I love me some Wambaugh, but, as I recall, (a) the novels are set in the seventies and eighties, and (b) his experience was LAPD. I’m not sure to what extent we can draw good or even fair descriptions of policing today from that.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I don’t think most cops are stupid enough to take on a violent armed robber by themselves — they don’t operate like in the movies. There are two options: they flash their lights, the alleged robber pulls over, and the policeman waits for overwhelming reinforcements.
Option two: Robber doesn’t pull over — in which case cop radios for roadblocks and , if need be, hits the rear of the robber’s car in a way that causes it to go into an uncontrolled skid and/or somersaults.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Steve, if thats the case then we need to change officer’s incentives plain and simple. We need to create actual consequences for police officers who act on their desire to dominate others or their desire to have people fear them. Its less important to discuss why people are motivated to become cops then to discuss what motivates them once they are cops. If they want the paycheck and pension, there should be disincentives towards abusive behavior. And those who simply can’t be disincentivized, who repeatedly insist on abusing ther power should be fired.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
A corporation is considered a legal “person.”
One example after a quick google
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/23/business/main2599596.shtml
July 29th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Great, so go tell NR. Maybe you can save them some fundraising efforts.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
That headline is pretty close to asking NR to sue you for libel.
Political speech has fairly high barriers of protection ever since Times v Sullivan. Unflattering interpretations of other peoples’ words or intentions have never, to my knowledge, been found libelous.
But no doubt you’re right, and Yglesias is quaking in his Nikes, peering around corners for any sign of a process server, as we speak.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Re: I’m not sure that anyone disagrees with you, Sailer. Maybe I’m missing something, but I think what’s at issue is whether threats that you’ll get shot should be one of the tools of intimidation (rather than, say, an arrest that gets kicked). “I’ll arrest you” is very different, it seems to me, from “I’ll kill you.”
This seems right to me. I don’t endorse what this LAPD fellow says.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
The President of the United States is roughly 100 times as likely to be killed in the line of duty as a police officer. I guess Bush was just extending this cop’s reasoning to its logical conclusion.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Steve Sailer Says:
July 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Look, the guys who want to become policemen are guys who like to have the upper hand. If they just wanted to help people and have everybody love them, they could have become firemen. So, you need to teach your sons the facts and their implications, which are: act deferential toward cops.
That is the sad truth. I am just as careful of what I say or do in front of cops. Keep in mind that they always have a lot of open cases that need a suspect. Cops get no hero worship from me, they aren’t all that much better than thugs in their outlook.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
There are fairly reliable tests for Machiavellian traits that I think should be used to keep particularly controlling people out of the police force. Sociopaths do flock to police work, like pedophiles flock to work with children.
This guy sounds like a reactive victim—not a really safe stance if you’re worried about someone doing violence to you.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Anent libel:
Nation Review in the headline here is a metonymy for the blogger. The original NR blog was posted under a pseudonym. And you can’t libel someone who’s identity is hidden.
And, as a matter of fact, lots of people have come away from the blog with the same impression. The blogger, I understand, has backpedaled and clarified.
Truth is a defense to libel, at least in this country.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
This is the mentality of a foreign occupying army, not a well-functioning police force.
Just wait until all those returning Iraq War vets take jobs as policemen. The mentality that they developed as occupiers suppressing a hostile invaded population won’t be so easy to shake. Expect more than one cop to treat patrolling LA the same way he did patrolling Baghdad….
July 29th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
There were only 41 policemen killed by guns in 2008, out of a force of over 1 million.
Their biggest danger is traffic accidents or in being accidently run over by rubbernecking civilians when they step out of their car to write a ticket.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/29/training-tactics-credited-decline-officer-deaths/
Even counting traffic accidents, etc
There are many civilian occupations that are far more dangerous. I worked in coal mines for a year to get money for college — coal mining is listed by BLS as one of the most dangerous jobs there are.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P63405.asp
July 29th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
There are fairly reliable tests for Machiavellian traits that I think should be used to keep particularly controlling people out of the police force.
I don’t agree with that. If you’re someone who enjoys doing violence to innocent people and therefore does so frequently and diligently in your job as a cop, you’re doing a good job. Trying to prevent promising cops from becoming cops is a fool’s errand since if you’re a cop who doesn’t do such things, you’ll languish in a junior position or a desk job until you loose your scruples.
Paedophiles who act on their paedophilia are not successfully carrying out their job description if they work with children as teachers or what have you. Cops who beat black people are, on the other hand.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You know, I make a simple comment so that Matt won’t get in trouble and the childish sarcasm comes out.
Times v Sullivan has to do with a Public Officials not being able to use unless the defendant knew their information was false (actual malice).
A better defence would be citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, in which an alleged slander was “so obviously ridiculous” that it was clearly not true.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Steve, perhaps you don’t understand that a free man going about his business, and not offending anyone’s rights, has no obligation to cooperate with a person who does not also recognize the obligation to cooperate, i.e. conform to all agreed-upon limits to his authority, and procedures required of him. Thus, for instance, when a police officer commands a free citizen to stop visually recording officers who are arresting a person in a public place, an activity which plenty of police officers have engaged in, that officer has decided to become a tyrant, and is deserving of nothing else than the full contempt and scorn due any tyrant.
Now, one may decide that discretion is the best course of action, given the immediate power disparities, but make no mistake, the obligation for “cooperation” is never, ever, a one way street, and if you think it is all unusual for police officers to fail to fufill their end of the bargain, you simply are ignorant. Also, if you think that a job, which gives the job holder the amount of power a police officer has, does not attract a disproportionate percentage of people who like forcing others to submit, you are too naive for words. It would be like supposing that investment banking does not attract a disproportionate percentage of people who place an extremely, extremely, high value on making money.
Having said all that, I don’t have much of an opinion on the Gates matter, because, unlike our Presdient, I feel no need to offer opinions on facts that I am not in possession of. I will make this general observation: sassing a police officer in the privacy of one’s home presents little threat to the public, and should likely not be behavior for which one is arrested for. On the other hand, police officers cannot do their jobs if the antisocial segment of the population feels it can subject police officers to public verbal abuse carte blanche.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
To get back to Gatesgate, when a man breaks into the house that appears on his ID as his own address, there’s a not insignificant chance he had to do it because his wife changed the locks. If the man is acting in a hostile and agitated fashion toward an armed policeman, that chance is even greater. When he won’t answer the policeman’s question about who else is in the house, the chance is even higher. So, the cop has to call the guy’s name in to see whether there are any restraining orders telling him to stay away from his wife’s residence or are there any warrants out.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Is Hector at 3:55 p.m. a spoof? Sure, it sounds like the kind of thing he’d say, but it sounds too much like the kind of thing he’d say, if that makes any sense. He’s well-known as a religious guy and left-wing, and sometimes he extends one or the other to the point of being a bit funny, but we don’t usually get to see him combining reverence for earthly and supernatural authority to such an extreme point that he might as well be saying “boy, I love to kiss some cop ass! Tastes grrreat!”
July 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Matt didn’t use the blogger’s name he used the NR name. A “metonymy defence” would be laughed out of court.
“Truth is a defense to libel, at least in this country.”
So you think it is true, and that Matt could prove that
NR wants Cops to kills civilians?
July 29th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“There were only 41 policemen killed by guns in 2008, out of a force of over 1 million.”
1. Roughly twice as many cops die by their own hand each year. It’s a psychologically rough job that attracts some psychologically rough people. As Wambaugh’s characters tell each other, “If you wanted everybody to love you, you should have been a firemen.”
2. A major reason cops killed in the line of duty have fallen by about two-thirds over the last generation despite a big increase in firepower in the hands of criminals is because all police departments have adopted cold-blooded LAPD-style professional techniques for dealing with traffic stops and the like. (See Don Williams’ comments above for some of the methods.)
They also train harder now to maintain dominance in interactions, because, they feel, when they lose dominance, somebody could wind up with a hole in them. (And it’s usually not the cop.)
July 29th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Even if we assume that the police report was completely accurate, which, as it turns out it wasn’t, the fact that Crowley arrested Gates AFTER having established that no break in was in progress is the most disturbing part.
Bingo. Why was this cop arresting Gates when he knew for a fact that this was Gates’ house? (and do we really have to explain there’s a difference between ARRESTING someone and “calling in the guy’s name” to make sure this isn’t a DV?)
July 29th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
“That is the sad truth. I am just as careful of what I say or do in front of cops. Keep in mind that they always have a lot of open cases that need a suspect. Cops get no hero worship from me, they aren’t all that much better than thugs in their outlook.”
It strikes me as pretty nihilistic to just state this matter of factly, with no real normative argument for or against.
Yes, we all know it to be the case that police overstep the boundaries of their power and do so mostly with impunity. The questions are should this be the case? If you think yes, then it should be institutionalized in the law. Cops should be allowed to arrest people for whatever personal motivations they may have, they should be allowed to use force whenever they would like to, etc.
If you think it shouldn’t be the case then we need to address the problem, not just shrug our shoulders and move on. How do we address it? I personally think the biggest problem is that cops have absolutely no sense that there are consequences for using their power inappropriately. So we need to clearly define what the inappropriate use of power is and then create real consequences for when they use their power inappropriately. Naturally this needs to be done with the recognition that mistake are made and that there will be occasions in which an officer genuinely believed he was acting appropriately, but was in fact mistaken. That said, there should be a low threshold of tolerance for mistakes simply because mistakes by Police officers can have some very dangerous consequences. So a police officer who repeatedly makes the mistake of using unnecessary force may not be doing it because he’s power hungry, but he may also not be cut out for police work.
I’m not saying those institutional changes would be easy to adopt, on the contrary, Police are extremely resistant to greater accountability and pretty effective at resisting change that would bring it about. But if you care about Police misconduct, they are the sort of things you need to advocate. Right now, it may even be in some cases it seems that police are encouraged to overstep their boundaries, but its certainly the case that there is virtually nothing in place to discourage police from abusing their power.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
What our society obviously needs is a government agency aimed at rooting out the nihilist intellectuals who undermine social morals, fully empowered to use threats of violence if not violence itself.
I really do wonder where these people come from. Because it most definitely is not the United States of America.
Nihilists, huh? Well say what you want about tenets of National Socialism, at least they had an ethos.
Hector came from the 12th Century via time travel in order to share his idiosychratic perspective.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Dear Anonymiss:
Gates was acting much like a man whose wife had changed the locks on him. The cop couldn’t just leave in that situation. And, whether rightly or wrongly, cops don’t put up with having abuse repeatedly screamed at them in their place of work, just like judges don’t.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
All these “libertarians” out there protesting taxes and government spending could stand to pay a little attention to how much power police have. Shouldn’t libertarians be troubled by an extension of the state having no problems with abusing their power?
Radley Balko, who is mentioned by name in Matt’s post, is a libertarian. And libertarians generally are far more concerned about the abuse of police power than the average “liberal.”
July 29th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
we don’t usually get to see him combining reverence for earthly and supernatural authority to such an extreme point that he might as well be saying “boy, I love to kiss some cop ass! Tastes grrreat!”
“Divine Right” authoritarianism and Catholicism are the chocolate and peanut butter in the Reese’s of the pre-Reformation mind.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
cops don’t put up with having abuse repeatedly screamed at them in their place of work
So my apartment is some cop’s place of work? I mean, I know we abandoned the fourth amendment a couple of years back, but I didn’t realize that police departments decided to take advantage of that to save some money on facilities by opening a precinct in my living room.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
And, whether rightly or wrongly, cops don’t put up with having abuse repeatedly screamed at them in their place of work,
If you’re such a delicate flower that you just can’t handle having abuse screamed at you without making it stop, stop, stop!, then may I suggest that being a cop is probably a bit too stressful for you, and you should take up a job where you don’t have to hear anything that might upset your tender little sensibilities. Like gardening, for example.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Steve Sailer,
This quote from the cop is exactly what parents should teach their sons about how a cop thinks when he pulls them over.
Which is precisely why we should get exercised over it. But then, I’m not surprised you don’t get that.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
Matt should grow up.
Yeah, you’re saying that people should “teach their sons” that, while they may have a right against unreasonable search and seizure, they should let a cop violate this whenever he wants to or be shot. The guy with the schoolyard GI Joe fantasies shouldn’t tell anyone else to grow up.
It undermines the reverence and respect that the police are due, and it damages the institutions of authority and deference that the human soul needs and craves.
Police who tell you, as this cop did, that rights are all well and good on paper but you must allow them to be violate or expect a bullet, do not deserve reverence or respect.
On a more important note, you are a sick fuck. You can project your craving for authority and submission fantasies (anyone remember Bolivia) onto “society” all you want, but you’re not fooling anyone.
July 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Hector, also, spare us the faux-respect of calling him Mr. Gates. It’s Dr. Gates, asshole
July 29th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
I doubt I’m the only one who finds Steve Sailer’s contributions to this thread to be pretty damn hilarious.
#9) He ridicules Matt’s assertion that Americans should not expect to be shot for asserting their Constitutional rights and refusing to take orders from the police, and calls him childish for believing that police should act in the public interest and not arrest or shoot people who disrespect their authority.
#18) He insists that cops will always think this way because there are so many guns floating around the country.
#23, #42) He insults policemen by depicting them as money-grubbing, power-hungry thugs who don’t care much about the welfare of others. He then delivers the following line without any apparent irony: “Matt, to educate yourself a little about how the real world works, try reading a few Joseph Wambaugh cop novels.”
#28) But then he essentially exculpates police from any and all violent acts they commit, suggesting that force is a legitimate response to a lack of cooperation.
It’s sort of like he watched Cool Hand Luke and decided that it was a documentary in which Strother Martin made some interesting points.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
The message is clear: kanonill cops before they kill you!
July 29th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
um, isn’t this the plot to “my cousin vinny”?
Uh, no. The NR scenario posits two identical cars. But, as you may recall from the movie, the boys were driving a 1964 Buick Skylark whereas the killers drove a 1963 Pontiac Tempest.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
That said, it seems to me that Matthew’s post is moronic. I would think that a cop pulling over a car that, he thinks contains armed robbery suspects would be somewhat afraid for his life, and thus more likely to react badly to the suspects disrespect.
Then again, I’m not a cop, so what do I know about it. (Of course, Matthew’s mot a cop either, but that doesn’t stop him from opining on what cops believe when they pull over armed robbery suspects.)
July 29th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Also, I should say that I don’t think Matthew libeled anyone. It’s just obvious that Matthew has no idea what the word “wants” means.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Meanwhile: This is insane. Most people like and respect cops, and honor the work they do. But it’s a profession that’s honored precisely because the people doing the job correctly don’t do the job this way. Police officers, in the course of duty, subject themselves to extra-normal risk of harm for the sake of the welfare of others. This is the mentality of a foreign occupying army, not a well-functioning police force.
BRAVO
July 29th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I think the cop was wrong in the Gates case. And the NR article seems as ridiculous as all the critics say. But this post doesn’t do much to improve the rhetoric around the debate.
National Review, as an institution, “wants cops to kill civilians”? Really? That’s what you draw from the article?
Let’s say I ran a Country Music magazine and someone like Waylon Jennings had a guest column. And in it, he wrote something incendiary, like, “City slickers walking into country bars ought to watch themselves. They start playing grabass with someone’s wife and there’s a good chance someone will get slashed over the head with a pool cue.”
I doubt it would be accurate to say that my magazine “wants country bupkins to smash urban dwellers over the head with pool cues.”
In fact, I am not sure it even makes sense to attribute that desire to Waylon Jennings. As a point of fact, he is correct. Many people who live in the country have a visceral dislike of city people. And should they observe this scenario unfold, they would seize the opportunity to resort to violence.
So is that an observation or an endorsement? I think the two can be muddled pretty easily. But it’s a huge stretch to jump to that conclusion.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Stefan @ 70,
How telling an insight into the hipster mind. The two jobs hipsters choose to jeer at, are gardeners and cops. In other words, those who protect the hipsters’ lives from harm, and those who literally put food on the hipsters’ tables.
The basic moral vacuum at the heart of the American experiment is pretty plainly revealed above.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“I don’t agree with that. If you’re someone who enjoys doing violence to innocent people and therefore does so frequently and diligently in your job as a cop, you’re doing a good job. Trying to prevent promising cops from becoming cops is a fool’s errand since if you’re a cop who doesn’t do such things, you’ll languish in a junior position or a desk job until you loose your scruples.
Paedophiles who act on their paedophilia are not successfully carrying out their job description if they work with children as teachers or what have you. Cops who beat black people are, on the other hand.”
Huh?!?!?!?!?!? Are you being sarcastic and cynical here or are you being serious?
The way to prevent Cops from inflicting unnecessary damage on people is by putting in place strong consequences that discourage them from abusing their power and by actively screening the sociopaths who are likely to engage in cruel behavior regardless of what consequences are put in place so that they don’t become cops in the first place, or if they manage to slip past the screening, that they be kicked off the force once sociopathic behavior becomes evident.
I’m not saying thats an easy process, but its better than what we have now, which is cops arresting and beating the crap out of non-criminals only to have their department issue statements that the officer has their full support.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
@ LaFollette Progressive @ 74
I suggest we give Steve a new nickname? How does “Bootlicker Sailor” sound?
It should better than his last one, “Frothing-at-the-mouth-racist Sailor” just doesn’t have the same ring.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
How telling an insight into the hipster mind. The two jobs hipsters choose to jeer at, are gardeners and cops. In other words, those who protect the hipsters’ lives from harm, and those who literally put food on the hipsters’ tables.
Huh? Gardeners? It’s waiters who put food on my table, or sometimes when they’re busy the busboys. I’ve never once had a gardener come up to my table with food and serve me directly. What kind of restaurants are you eating at?
July 29th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The people asserting that it is necessary for the police to behave in a dominant fashion don’t know what they’re talking about.
Lowell, MA had the highest drop in crime of any city in America during the 1990s, and it did so be utilizing a respectful community policing strategy that specifically abjures the “Respec mah authoritai!”‘ mentality, and encouraging the police officers on the beat to be respectful in their interactions with the public, so they won’t be seen as the enemy, as an occupying army of outsiders, but rather, as “us.”
Like the defenders of the failed “enhanced interrogation program,” this has a lot more to do with using state power to fulfill psychological needs than promoting safety and security.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“City slickers walking into country bars ought to watch themselves. They start playing grabass with someone’s wife and there’s a good chance someone will get slashed over the head with a pool cue.”…I doubt it would be accurate to say that my magazine “wants country bupkins to smash urban dwellers over the head with pool cues.”
I really have no idea what you’re getting at—but if you’re suggesting that drunken low-income redneck men in a honky-tonk are as prone to impulsive, violent rage as are cops in general, I concede you may well be right.
July 29th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
(Of course, Matthew’s mot a cop either, but that doesn’t stop him from opining on what cops believe when they pull over armed robbery suspects.)
Point it out where he does just that, Lawyerbreath.( Unless you’re in competition with Sailer.)
July 29th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
I don’t think you guys are reading Dunphy right. The key phrase is “fail to do as the officer asks.” He doesn’t give a crap what you say; it’s the not doing what he asks that’s going to get you in trouble. From the cop’s point of view, you get to complain about your 4th amendment rights AFTER things are settled down.
I’ve seen knuckleheads cursing out LAPD while they get a jaywalking ticket adn the cops don’t give a crap. That’s part of the job. But if they don’t follow directions, hell to pay; that’s dangerous.
If you do think that, as a citizen, you can ignore the instructions of the police when you’re a suspected criminal without something bad happening to you, then, well, OK. I’m not sure how any law enforcement can function, though.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Re: Hector, also, spare us the faux-respect of calling him Mr. Gates. It’s Dr. Gates, asshole
I’ll call him what I d*mn well please, and that happens to be Mr. Gates.
Re: On a more important note, you are a sick fuck. You can project your craving for authority and submission fantasies (anyone remember Bolivia) onto “society” all you want, but you’re not fooling anyone.
It would seem that it is Mr. Anthony that is the ’sick f*ck’ as it were. I will defend the Bolivian Regime to the last drop of my blood.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
“Sorry but I feel not a whit of sympathy for Professor Gates. Just who does more to keep society functioning: a hipster postmodernist professor of American Literature like Mr. Gates, or a man like Officer Crowley who spends his life combating rapists and drug dealers? In a healthy society Officer Crowley would be more respected and better paid than any number of American Literature professors.”
Around Boston, many cops make more than many literature
professors. Because a) people don’t go into academia for the
money, they choose it because they like it, the hours aren’t
too bad, the vacations are long, and there’s no heavy lifting.
My wife is in roughly that field, and there are about 200
qualified (PhD) candidates for each position. And b) cops
in Massachusetts get a lot of overtime on details for
roadworks – making over $100K is common.
Now Professor Gates is probably exceptionally well paid,
because he’s a superstar at a very wealthy institution, and
he’s doing a lot of other work on the side (e.g. TV). But
that’s *very* unusual for a humanities professor.
Relative worth to society is very much in the eye of the
beholder, but let’s just say that I don’t share your evident
contempt for higher education. And on this particular day
Officer Crowley wasn’t busy fighting rapists and drug dealers,
he was appropriately responding to a possible crime, when in
the course of about 4 minutes he made the curious decision
to waste a whole lot of everyone’s time by arresting a 60-ish
man on his own porch for nothing more – based on his own
highly questionable report – than being a bit cranky.
The really interesting question is how many other times
Crowley has pulled this kind of crap on people who aren’t
well-known and don’t have good lawyers, leaving them with a
criminal record. I’d be interested to see how many reports
he’s filed talking about “tumultuous” behavior, and how
many times he claims to have heard the “I’ll talk to your
mama” line. I strongly suspect that the content of his
report has more to do with what worked with judges in the
past, than anything that Prof Gates actually said or did.
I don’t necessarily think he’s a racist, but I suspect that
he’s made a habit of abusing his authority and filing
over-imaginative reports to make it stick.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
[...] Some winger who works at the LAPD (via MY): [...]
July 29th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
The really interesting question is how many other times
Crowley has pulled this kind of crap on people who aren’t
well-known and don’t have good lawyers, leaving them with a
criminal record.
Does this actually give a person a criminal record? I was under the impression that most of these kinds of “disorderly conduct” charges don’t go to trial. The point is to arrest the person and to let hm cool his heels and then release him, not to convict him.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“Does this actually give a person a criminal record? I was under the impression that most of these kinds of “disorderly conduct” charges don’t go to trial”
I don’t know – but if it’s customary to arrest people and
charge them without having any intention of proving the
charge in court, then that would itself be a gross abuse
of police power.
July 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Funny, like joe’s Lowell, NYC saw a drop in crime during the 90s that made LA look like some third world cess pool.
And we did it by enlisting more cops, especially more kids from the areas that needed the policing, or in other words, ethnic minorities, and by cracking down hard on the occupation shit that you see elsewhere.
You know what? It was only when I moved to Westchester that I started fearing cops, a feeling that continued when I moved to Chicago. This is because they never got out of their cars, they made no attempt to associate with the community, and they acted surly.
Whereas in New York, as I tell my friends who visit, the first person you ought to get directions or help from is a cop, because they’re friendly and knowledgeable. Moreover, this holds true for cops in the south Bronx or Spanish Harlem or Flatbush or the Financial District.
When the police cease to be part of the community, they are, in all but name, an occupation army.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:10 am
This has proven to be effective repeatedly—not only in NYC, but in San Francisco as well. Being polite and friendly, and serving, rather than behaving as if citizens are supposed to serve the police, is effective.
Seems every election, “tough” on crime becomes a theme, and people are convinced they want machismo in the police force.
I would recommend higher pay, and higher standards for our police officers. They should also have partners when working from their car. Every time someone calls the police, cars from all directions tear to the scene with their sirens blaring and it only adds to the misconception that our streets are ridden with crime.
They can wash out sociopaths and teach officers social skills that will not only make them better public servants, but perhaps help them keep an even keel so that they don’t kill themselves with their revolvers and/or alcohol. It’s no fun working with people at their worst every day. Being rewarded for resolving conflict without violence and arrests would be good for everyone.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:46 am
Hector,
Aside from either of our statuses as a sick fuck, I’d like to ask again about the word “hipster”. You’ve explained what you mean when you use it. What you haven’t explained is why you decided to use that word, which has other meanings, to mean something it doesn’t mean.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:47 am
This is a he said/she said deal. It appears that there are some inconsistencies with the officers statements and that does put his credibility into question.
I would like to think that if I were in Professor Gates shoes I would be happy that the police arrived and show them my ID. I would guess that is what happened but who knows, something might have been said. No matter what was said, the logical thing would have been for the officer to drop it and not arrest someone for breaking into there own house. I imagine that many of us would be upset to find our house had possibly been broken into, not being able to get into it after a long trip, then being suspected of breaking in and having to explain this to the police.
What I am damn sure of that if Rush Limbaugh found himself unable to get into his mansion in Miami and a Cuban officer arrived on the scene and ended up arresting him for distubing the peace we’d hear plenty about it.
I don’t know what happened but I imagine that Professor Gates has a little chip on his shoulder, rightfully to be honest, and he was frustrated by the situation. I am sure he didn’t act in a way the officer liked and he probably embellished what was said and made the even stupider decision to arrest him. The idea that this is a militant black action is absurd despite what the right wing press would have you believe. As a middle aged white professional I know plenty of people who would act very much like Professor Gates likely did and they wouldn’t get arrested.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:46 am
My standard answer: The only good cop is a dead cop.
July 30th, 2009 at 7:27 am
“I would recommend higher pay, and higher standards for our police officers”
Really ? It’s pretty well-paid in Massachusetts already:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/02/07/pay_exceeds_140000_for_hundreds_of_troopers/
“In 2005, nine Boston officers made more than $200,000, and more than 1,000 made more than $100,000.
Coflesky said State Police began working under a new contract last July 1 that runs until Dec. 31, 2008. State troopers’ base pay increased by 3.75 percent this year and now ranges from $49,376 to $68,236 a year, depending on years of service.
Officers at higher ranks and detectives earn thousands more.
Detective Lieutenant William Powers, a spokesman for the State Police, said he believes that the compensation is fair.”
July 30th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Re: My wife is in roughly that field, and there are about 200
qualified (PhD) candidates for each position. And b) cops
in Massachusetts get a lot of overtime on details for
roadworks – making over $100K is common.
Sweet Chr*st, not this ‘roadwork’ line again. I’ve heard this burbling about how MA cops are overpaid because they do roadwork details, a lot. Just how much pay do you think is a fair wage for risking your life everyday to keep the streets free from rapists and drug dealers? The last time a lawyer friend of mine was arguing that the DAs should get paid more than the cops because they help lock up the criminals too. I asked him just when was the last time a DA was riddled with bullets in the line of duty.
I don’t have a contempt for higher education, I have a (certain) contempt for (certain) aspects of the literature field. I certainly agree that academics in the hard sciences should be compensated well. I would have a hell of a lot more respect for American Literature as ain intellectual endeavor if it had not been corrupted by the postmodernist virus of Said, Foucault, and Freud. To be honest though, as someone from an academic family and who is a graduate student right now, I think that working as an academic is its own reward, and people should not go into the field expecting a really high salary.
Gates’ salary should not be based on his being a ’superstar’, or the fact that he works at Harvard, but on the merits of his contribution to understanding the fields of Literature and American History. Being a superstar has nothing to do with genuine academic merit.
July 30th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Hector, you can do what you want, of course, but accepting Revealed Truth and then mocking someone else’s “craving for authority and submission fantasies” would strike the Casual Observer as pure psychological projection.
July 30th, 2009 at 10:10 am
cops arresting and beating the crap out of non-criminals only to have their department issue statements that the officer has their full support.
Do you not believe such statements? I do. That’s why I said that when you kick the crap out of black people, you’re doing your job as a cop.
I’m in favor of draconian penalties for cops who commit random and unjustified acts of violence, but I don’t think “screening” recruits for “bad apples” will be particularly effective. Even a good apple who enters a profession where senseless violence is rewarded will respond to incentives. Consequently, no truly good apples do.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Hector, you can do what you want, of course, but accepting Revealed Truth and then mocking someone else’s “craving for authority and submission fantasies” would strike the Casual Observer as pure psychological projection.
Actually, it was Hector who said that the human soul craves authority and deference, then I mocked him for dressing up his “craving for authority and submission fantasies”, as it termed them (which include his love of Andean whipping) as having anything to do with the deep needs of the human soul.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“Sweet Chr*st, not this ‘roadwork’ line again. I’ve heard this burbling about how MA cops are overpaid because they do roadwork details, a lot. Just how much pay do you think is a fair wage for risking your life everyday to keep the streets free from rapists and drug dealers?”
I didn’t say they’re overpaid. You were complaining that
society doesn’t value cops, and that they should get more
money than literature professors. And I’m just pointing
out that they *do* get more money than the vast majority
of literature professors. And the reason why is precisely
that society *does* value their work, and the voters
consistently vote for politicians who promise to put more
cops on the street. So much so that it’s a cliche (and
personally, I think we’d do better to put more resources
into preventive measures and non-custodial approaches to
criminal justice, but that’s another story).
As for the value of Professor Gates’ work, I’m not
qualified to judge that. Whether or not it’s good, my point
in describing him as a “superstar” academic was merely that
his pay and circumstances are exceptionally high for a
humanities professor.
As for the “rapists and drug dealers” stuff, firstly, that’s
part of the job and everyone knows it. In spite of that,
policing is not an especially dangerous job (it just barely
cracked the top 10), though undoubtedly it is stressful at
times. Secondly, in this case the issue is precisely that
Sgt Crowley was *not* dealing with a rapist or drug dealer,
but instead wasted a lot of everyone’s time by arresting and
charging someone, on his own porch, just for being cranky.
That’s bad, no matter how you feel about the influence of
structuralism and semiotics on 21st-century literary
criticism.
July 30th, 2009 at 11:57 am
In a healthy society Officer Crowley would be more respected and better paid than any number of American Literature professors.
In a healthy society, police officers might well be more respected and better paid than American Literature professors (although the unusually eminent professors might make more than the average, just as the higher ranks of officers would). However, in a healthy society, Crowley would not be a police officer. In a healthy society, this incident would be a fireable offense.
In the society we have, abuse of police power to terrorize the underclass is so routine people like Marshall can believe that it is their de facto *job*, and the evidence on that point is actually equivocal. Crowley made a bullshit arrest, for a charge he had to know Gates couldn’t possibly be convicted of, in a situation where he had sufficient evidence to know no crime had been committed. And for that, he is still on the force. That is not the action of a society that cares about the quality of its police force. (This, incidentally, is why deference to the police is such a toxic idea. You can’t oversee the police meaningfully while deferring to them. I’m not suggesting obstructing their legitimate duties, but every member of society has a positive duty to watch for, and call out, police abuses. If we don’t, who will? Not the police themselves, that’s for damn sure.)
P.S. I do think NR wants cops to kill a few civilians, pour encourager les autres. Aren’t they the same ones who published the infamous editorial about beating up some small country just to prove we could? This is just the same thing on a smaller scale.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Perhaps I should also make the point that *nobody* should be
arrested on their front porch just for being cranky. The
value of Professor Gates work is *completely* irrelevant.
He shouldn’t have been arrested like this if he was a
garbageman, or worked at Starbucks, or was a truck driver.
He shouldn’t have been arrested like this even if he *was*
a rapist or a drug dealer. Drug dealers should be arrested
for dealing drugs; but even they shouldn’t be arrested for
behavior that obviously isn’t a crime.
The only significance of Prof Gates’ identity is that it has
led to widespread scrutiny of the incident.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Hey, if anyone here knows Pres Obama, can they make sure that
when he and Crowley get together for a beer, he should
a) not raise his voice, and b) stay inside. It might be a
good idea if he tape-records the whole meeting as well, just
in case Crowley decides to write another creative incident
report
July 30th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
The biggest crime of all is that the President is having Bud Light (if NPR is to be believed). I thought he exercised excellent judgment by saying the police acted “stupidly” in this affair, but now his judgment is definitely in question.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Which is what the Black Panthers were telling us back in the 60’s. Their quasi-Marxist ideology may have been far-fetched and may have raised more questions than it answered, but they had a point.
July 30th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
10 most dangerous jobs here (police aren’t in the top 10)
http://hubpages.com/hub/Most_Dangerous_Jobs
Fishing
Timber and logging
Aircraft pilot
Structural iron and steel workers
Refuse collector
Farmer
Roofer
Electrical lineman
Delivery drivers and truck drivers
Taxi drivers
July 30th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Richard Cownie,
Yes, I’ve seen that chart before. A quick question: when was the last time you heard Yglesias, Thomas Friedman, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Leadership Council cocktail party liberals call for a better deal for steelworkers, loggers and commercial fishermen?
July 30th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“A quick question: when was the last time you heard Yglesias, Thomas Friedman, Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic Leadership Council cocktail party liberals call for a better deal for steelworkers, loggers and commercial fishermen?”
Yglesias and Obama both support policies that involve
increasing taxes for those with over $250K of taxable income
(e.g. bankers, doctors, professionals, CEOs) and using
that revenue in part to subsidize health insurance for
those around median income – which probably includes
most steelworkers, loggers and commercial fishermen. I
don’t know, and don’t much care, about Friedman or the DLC.
Also Democrats are much more inclined to enforce OSHA safety
regulations than are recent Republicans.
And of course the stimulus package is creating a good deal
of demand for construction workers.
So I think it’s win-win for people in those kind of jobs -
having Democrats in power gets them a safer working
environment, a higher probability of being employed, lower
taxes, cheaper health insurance (and the proposed community-
rating regulations will probably make it *much* easier for
people in high-risk jobs to get insurance) and a better social
safety net (e.g. extended unemployment benefits).
Now Democrats don’t make a big noise about this kind of
thing because those groups don’t have much political clout:
they’re not in a position to make big political donations,
they don’t have millions to spend on political advertising,
and they’re often non-union jobs. But what you actually *do*,
and what you choose to talk about, are two different things.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Re Richard Cownie (#110):
1. Yeah, but people in those top 10 occupations aren’t known for keeping undesirables down.
2. I’m surprised firefighters aren’t on the list.
3. Next time you order takeout, be nice to your deliveryman.
July 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
“2. I’m surprised firefighters aren’t on the list.”
Yes, it’s interesting. I suspect it’s partly to do with
public-sector vs for-profit employers and union vs non-union
jobs. No public-sector jobs (except refuse collector, in
some places ?) in the top 10.
Obviously fire-fighting has inherent dangers, but there are
also strict practices, training, and equipment to keep
those dangers under control. To a large extent the same
factors apply to the police. But all that kind of thing
costs money, so for-profit employers, even for very dangerous
work, may have a tendency to skimp (and it only takes a few
bad employers to skew the statistics, I’m not saying a
disregard for safety is universal).
July 30th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Hector,
Prosecutors are murdered at a higher per capita rate than police. Police have a higher on the job death rate due to accidents, but prosecutors are more likely to be “riddled with bullets”.
July 31st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Really great work. Congrats to everyone who are involved with this project. The website layout and graphics are really cool. Please come visit my site Restaurant Fast food Directory when you got time.