I really don’t have time to read this book. but I’m aware the term can have a rather ironic context-- as demonstrated in this Frank Rich Opinion piece some years back
but rather than try to develop an understanding of the term of art. it would be easier to answer you directly.
So you’re saying the police force is largely made up of Good Germans?
No. I would not use those words.
Oh heck, even Frank Serpico thinks nothing has changed since the days of Frank Serpico: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-are-still-out-of-control-112160.html
Oh dear, I thought I was off of Twitter, with the accusations that criticizing police brutality must mean that the criticizer wants police to die.
Don’t we call it a ‘coup’ (and not exactly in the positive sense) when the ostensible security forces swarm over the elected government to achieve their demands?
OK, fair enough. What were you trying to say when you said this then:
But there are hundreds of thousands of officers drawing that conclusion
that because these dozens of unrelated officers are never prosecuted,
and never forced to take responsibility for their individual actions,
that there is in fact a policy of tolerating thuggishness among the
police.
It seems that you are saying that hundred of thousands of officers go along with the brutality of the “bad apples” because they think that that’s just how things are done in the police force. (Not too far, if at all, from the “Good German” concept.) What have I misunderstood?
Very true.
Now the problem is, what can be done to change the overall culture and return Officer Friendly to the streets…?
Guess, what. The world is capricious, and police do not have any more right to avoid economic incentives and penalties than I do. Incentives. Blue respond to any administrative bump in their career like it’s literally jail. Man up. You already have brotherhood and a gun, don’t wreck it with such cowardice.
Think of the CIA morons who thought torture would yield important information but then hid under their honorable heroism. After commiting Constitutional crimes, violently abusing people, two years in Leavenworth would be light, even considering their intentions.
Administrative economic incentives beat a civil war. The lack of any compromise by the blue is exactly the kind of violent radicalism that gets people killed. Riots, reprisals, war, a big part of that result will be down to that dumb inability to be adults and accept consequences that might not always be fair but can always be borne.
I don’t know.
I have a thought, about rotating people between cop and non-cop duty in the same area, in about 1:2 or 1:3 ratio, so the people get used to the same person not being always an enemy and the person gets used to the people not always being on the bad side or suspicious.
As of the gang-policed areas, I have truly no idea, except first stopping the war-on-drugs nonsense and providing some alternative jobs in the area.
Given that the bad guys lie and cover their guilt, how about punishing bad outcomes? Everyone else can be punished disproportionately when interacting with the blue, where’s the “basic fairness” for half a dozen cops killing someone over singles? You really don’t get it and your entitled cowardice is disgusting. Stop being so defensive about the mildest of measures.
Your attitude is a naked challenge to civility. In the absence of civility by the blue, the blue are working themselves into a frenzy about violence in the middle of the lowest crime rates in history. We don’t need coddled cops who don’t understand that economic sanctions are more than fair when the outcome being hedged against is multi-million payouts by the voters. If you don’t live by rules, go be a mercenary. We don’t need you and we may end up having to put you in a cage anyway.
Basic fairness. Your brain does not operate properly.
The problem is when the union boss crosses the line and stokes the fires that set the populace against the police force. Stating that the primary elected official of a metropolis “has blood on his hands” goes waaaaaay over the line of what the union should be fighting for – professionalism on the force and mutual respect between the police and the populace that they are in uniform to serve and protect.
Between you and me and the BBS, I’m thrilled that police officers not only read bb, but participate in challenging conversations about issues regarding the police. Which is why it would be tough for me to ever be “anti-police.” Plus, I’m an upper middle class white guy… 
It’s true that most societal issues are, yes, societal in nature. And given that most police (99.9999999999%) are members of the “99%” I don’t think it’s going too far out of bounds to say that the police should vehemently support societal policies that lead to lower crime. That is to say, ending the drug war and making sure people in at risk communities have access to solid education and jobs.
Just glad to know police read Foucault AND bb!
If it were up to me, any police officer who could talk RAW would be commanding the force of a very large metropolitan department!!! And for what it’s worth, thank you for your service – it sounds like you do “the police” (which is a highly fragmented term, obviously) proud.
My personal philosophy: We’re all people. Even if some people act in ways I hate, I still have to honor their humanity. Which isn’t to say I have to like them. Just that I have to remember not to hate them as people. I have to remember to hate what people do, and what they stand for. Not hate them as inherently evil or bad.
So let me ask you then – while Ferguson may be a bit more hazy, what do you think about Staten Island? Should there have been an indictment? In your view? Me, I say yes, ands the fact that I think many many people agree with that is why so much tension is in the air in NYC right now.
I have his debate with myself often – can people be bad? On one level I understand that people are a product of both their genes and the circumstances j to which they were born. And from this perspective, I agree with you. But on the other, it sort of alleviates people from their personal responsibility.
Now, I also believe in a multidimensional aspect of “self” that goes way beyond the confines of this conversation. Which perhaps complicates and simultaneously simplifies the argument quite a bit…
I try to stay humanist for the most part. I don’t want to assume people are “good” or “bad” because I don’t have a strict objective morality. There are certainly things I don’t think can be justified, but there’s other times when I’m willing to just sort of give up and say that something harmful someone’s doing is just a flaw of being electrified meat.
I don’t like the idea of there being inherently bad people, simply because everyone is the hero of their own story. In principal morality can only be fixed and permanent if there were some kind of being outside of time to set it. My morality has much more to do with consequences than the dictates of a non-existent god. I’d much rather act in ways that don’t hurt people, and try to do good for people than follow any set of rules. Which makes some people with rigid objective moralities think I’m an evil, lawless person, instead of someone who’s committed to not trying to hurt people, but not very good at it.
I don’t think anyone here could ask for a better attitude than that
I see the difference which is why the sanction I proposed was so mild. I made that clear. At a certain point, decisions have to be made about where to draw the line at accepting bad outcomes. I didn’t advocate prison or criminal punishment. Economic costs for killing people is the mildest form of sanction for an incredibly bad outcome. Four and a half month’s pay over six months is a tiny pittance compared to the cost to the rest of the world of a fatality you cause. Some other economic sanction might be more “fair”, but you simply responded with a blanket appeal to absolute fairness for all cops in all situations with perfect knowledge. Your reaction betrays a complete lack of awareness of how other people experience the world in school, work, and every other system of society.
What is wrong about your cop-fantasy world is that you think cops deserve the utmost consideration (and nothing slightly bad ever happens) unless they are both (1) caught doing something wrong and (2) they can’t cover up their wrongdoing. It’s perverse. Criminal, even, in its application.
I appreciate that you are down in the bottom of a deep hole which other people have dug for you, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t accountable for trying to dig up through the layers of absolutist fantasies about your entitlement. It really is a world view with many thick layers of brutality, cowardice, and treason. But if you are willing to think about it, you needn’t be afraid to adjust your thinking. Some Stalinists rehabilitated themselves once the scales fell from their eyes. Do you want to do good or do you just want to reach retirement as an apparatchik with a fat pension and little risk? Because the fat pension and the little risk are the reality of your occupation, despite the “mean streets” mythology that fuels your psychopathic world view.
