Protecting or Instigating
By making it illegal for us to look out for each other and the well being of our own communities, cops are destroying our communites not serving them. I wonder if they had to be accountable to the communites they 'serve' would they go prowling neighborhoods they don't understand or care about looking for problems with a gun on their hip then?
the very concept of cops is a an example of institutionalized and stereotypical thinking; Crime is inherent in people and people need to be policed right? Lets break away from what TV told us and accept that all we know is what we observe, and if all we've ever observed was in one setting then we've never tried nothing new, and hence have never observed anything new.
Are cops necessary? Better phrased; do people police themselves in a large society? We don't know. Every example we could come up with is in some way correlated to the environment which created it. We've never seen it. It's never been tried. Tribes in Africa and Asia, Native Americans (before we came here), and countless others made it work, but they are small, truly isolated communities.
What relevance does this have to me when I see a badge? I see things going wrong every day. People might follow laws and not hit each other, but sometimes a punch (when the situation calls for it)would be much more honest than what we do to each other. Take for example animals; They might kill each other for food or territory, but they usually don't do more than nature dictated is necessary. They don't consistently demonstrate greed, shape their environment according to desire, and enforce it on everything and everyone else. They might kill you if you get too close to where their babies lie, but they'll never evict you from your home that they themselves never took the time to build so they can get their money. They eat chickens, but they don't lock them in cages and steal their freedom, they don't even do that to their own kind for that matter. When they kill they earn it, and they eat something that lived a free life.They may kill, but they don't confine. And that is what we do in more ways than just putting each other in prison.
Not taking more than is needed is equivalent to acknowledging what was given was in fact GIVEN free of charge. Aside from movement and continually endeavoring in craft, simply recognizing it's not ones place to take more than is necessary is the closest I dare come to trying to define the concept of worshiping any creator. Personally I prefer to see it as rather a recognition that all is one/ Brahma sort of thing. And rationally- someday even scientifically- this seems to make sense in terms of explaining behavior. 'God' to me is not someone or something to be worshiped, he/ she / creation/ creator, is something to be recognized. We we're given everything we need, the rest is on us.
But I digress.
Cops spend a lot of their time addressing the effect, but only people who are in the position to see a real cause to a situation can address that cause. We've created an environment where a law abiding crook in a suit bent on his or her desires can get away with things the instincts mother nature gave tell us are clearly wrong. Things a leader of a pack of animals would have killed over because instinctively they know desire when they smell it, and they know that desire separates packs. Period.
I can't help but see desire behind the institutionalized structure of society, what other motive can explain an environment where dishonest thieves get away with robbery and lock the people up who were perhaps just responding and trying to survive an environment that the thief created in the first place? Like I said, only people affected by a situation see the cause of it. Only they know why they did it. All we know is they are a criminal, and should be locked up because that will solve something right?
It solves nothing.
Real criminals often wear suits. They are not governed by this stereotypical conception of 'evil' and are often the least violent people around. They are governed by desire, and we live in a society that promotes it from the moment you enter this world. We live in a society that bands explicit forms of desire while actively promoting desire as a way of life.
I dislike the general idea of cops because you cannot serve as a watch dog for a society that puts desires before people and then claim to be a serving member of the community. You cannot be the sole force between people policing themselves and actually addressing the cause of their ills and then claim to be looking out for them,
I'd be stereotyping to say males have the instincts to look out for the best interest of the group, I will however dare characterize it as a quality of masculinity though (of which some females possess as well) . Masculine - feminine, positive - negative, hunter - gatherer. I trust human nature. I trust people. And I realize living in a society that values institutionalization truncates that process from playing out.
There is a very large discrepancy between what is good and simple rules. Sometimes people do need to take matters into their own hands and hold each other accountable as well as feel accountable towards each other for our actions. And sometimes we need to be free to take our own action when no one cares. If we're not allowed to stand up for each other we will never learn (or remember) how to trust each other.
I can police myself and look out for my community, and I've seen enough out of the box environments to trust that there is no lack of people out there who do the same. A loss of social capital and trust, as well as incentive to both harm each other and criminalize each other, is characteristic of an environment where people are not directly accountable to each other. I can police myself, and that does not make me ''evil'', just like it does not make a cop preventing me from doing it ''good''.
Day three after writing this
I saw a guy run out Safeway with a case of beer today and the manager chased him then came back after realizing there is nothing he was allowed to do about it. Perhaps people being held back from policing themselves may actually cause opportunities for crime as well as destroy the trust between us. Someone needs to bring it up, because it's a non-issue on the table, and as cops killing people for no good reason is a hot topic now days, it is interesting to consider.
I wonder if people were free to seek justice for themselves and protect their communities would cops think twice before murdering kids without a good reason? Would they prowl neighborhoods they don't understand or care about with a loaded gun on their hip looking for problems then? We were not born slaves and a cop needs a good reason to start making commands. There is a difference between commands and requests, and we citizens are free to demand that cops abide by this. I was not born a slave and will demand a damn good reason for anyone telling me what to do. Controlling people without an absolute need for it instigates conflict. Nobody is going to respond well to that. The problem is it is perfectly legal for cops to do so, then when they get a guy (or a kid) to itch his ass the wrong way they are free to shoot him to death.
My childhood friend was shot too death from across a room for holding a knife and according to the officer he began to charge. According to people who were there and what I heard, the officer did not ask to enter before coming in the door and did not announce his presence, and (Kenny Dennis) was not half as threatening as the officers statement implied- something to that effect. The point is it could have played out many ways, and many situations like this happen around the country all the time. But all a cop needs to do is claim someone reached for their waste and that justifies killing them.
Trevon martin and the kid in Ferguson were murdered by cops or someone trying to emulate one. Although I am certain the guy who shot Trevon needs to not go playing police on our children when he is armed, we will never know for sure if they were justified in firing. We do however know that the next cop has virtually no reason to think twice and be more responsible than he/ she would if people themselves held the cop accountable and were free to enact punishment. If that were the case they would never go prowling neighborhoods they don't understand looking for problems with a gun in their waist.
Last year I was in Dallas Texas passing an abandoned building with no one around and some dog that looked like a mix between a boxer and something bigger with one of the baddest attitudes I've seen in a dog come running at me as I was crossing his territory. I do as I always do; I stand my ground, even take a step forward, and yell, "STOP, NO" at the top of my lungs while pointing for him to go. works on every dog I've yet encountered (and have walked through some dog infested neighborhoods:). as a boxer I know both that body language is important and that though dogs are scary, unless you let them at your throat they are not going to hurt a full grown and trained man more than he is capable of hurting the smaller dog if he just keeps his composure and realizes this. police dogs, wolves, and Great Danes may be the exception- all of which a cop is unlikely to ever get in a confrontation with. like so many other situations some cops seem inadequate and shaky- don't pack heat if you are not fit for a confrontation .
Maybe they should be required to have actual experience in confrontations (boxing/ martial arts/ mma/ wrestling matches) because that would get them used to the feeling. I remember a book a researcher did on disaster situations in which her research suggested people who had experienced such situations tended to compose themselves and act on muscle memory instead of being to ones to lock up or do something irrational. If pulling a trigger is all he has for muscle memory and that was an act of composed rationality then god help our furry friends.
An agency that trains some of the best dogs in the nation knows you can assert your dominance over them in the worst case, at the least he could have realized that this dog thinks his owner is being attacked and the officer did nothing but hold out his hand to change that. Just because you arrest someone there is no need to be uncivil about it, certainly not when they willingly put their hands behind their back. He could have backed off a few feet and let the owner calm the dog. He turned a civil situation into a lethal one. And I'm sure he got away with it.
School shootings. It's not realistic to say one or two security guards on a campus or metal detectors can protect kids against a shooter that is suicidal to begin with. These shooters however, are not the bravest people in the world; they are depressed nerds. Shooting unarmed people just like they do in a video game seems a plausible outlet and a fitting punishment for society right? But would they be so quick and bold to pursue such a thing if a teacher had a gun and they knew there was a very real chance of getting shot well before they get away with murdering 42 helpless kids and teachers?
link to www.theverge.com
On numerous daily occasions we call the cops without taking the time to get to know someone or understanding them, their environment, and the underlying cause. The cops are not our personal weapon to hurl at each other while we hide behind our cell phones. This attitude promotes cops to hold similar attitudes and allows them to harass and profile people without good reason.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion