View Single Post
Old March 12, 2009, 05:08 PM   #85
Join Date: March 4, 2009
Posts: 26
Trying NOT to Make this a P!$$!ng Contest

First, let me refresh everyone's memory about the de-policing definition and why I criticized it as being a political statement by LEOs who chose to act in this manner and suggested that they weren't doing their jobs.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

De-policing is a "law enforcement strategy in which police avoid accusations of racial profiling by ignoring traffic violations and other petty crimes committed by members of visible minorities." 1 In a sense de-policing is the opposite of racial profiling.

De-policing represents a de-facto police strike, where the police withdraw an aspect of their crime prevention services. It is a practical police protest at perceived political interference in their day-to-day task of policing.
And a refresher on exactly what I said about it:
This sounds to me like someone on the public payroll refusing to do his/her job. That would - or should - be grounds for firing said public employee. Certainly, if I had ever refused to do my job as a political statement (I spent my career in the private sector) I would have been fired.

It is not enough to operate in good faith and exercise bad judgment, or worse. When anyone is given such power and authority, he had better be competent to handle it or be prepared to suffer the consequences. If you are not prepared for that, I suggest you resign before you do further harm.
And the response:
No it is not refusing to do my job. My job is to enforce laws, make arrests and document criminal activity.

There is a huge difference between answering my radio calls and patrolling my beat and doing Police work.

De-Policing is not a political statement it is being minimally observant of the climate you operate in
How dare you insinuate I am not prepared for the job I have been doing for over twelve years spent mostly in areas you would be hesitant to frequent.
Before proceeding further, I must hasten to state that my choice of the term 'you' in the last sentence of the second quote above was a poor one for I did not intend to be critical of any specific individual, especially not about someone who's performance or personality I do not know. I should have said, "If ONE IS not prepared for that, I suggest HE resign before HE DOES further harm." I apologize for giving even unintended offense.

At the risk of being accused of pouring fuel on the fire, it seems to me that some professional detachment is in order. I've included the quotes so that all may refer to them in this one place. I don't believe that I've taken them out of context, but will welcome any suggestion and evidence to the contrary.

I also must state that I am not anti-LEO. LEOs are, unfortunately, necessary adjuncts to modern society. We, the citizens, create them, staff them, and give them tremendous legal and physical power. The very fact that they are given such power and authority is the very reason that we should be eternally vigilant and critical of their behavior and performance. The tendency to abuse privilege, power and authority is written throughout the history of mankind; so it is not unreasonable to exercise caution - even extreme caution - when we give it. Those are the reasons for my very stringent criticism of LEOs.

Now to the gist of the post.
This entire exchange illustrates why NKWs and even SWATs are dangerous. Here we have evidence of actual information being misunderstood - possibly intentionally, possibly accidentally. The first quotation above establishes the definition of what was later criticized, to wit, ". . . where the police withdraw an aspect of their crime prevention services. It is a practical police protest . . . " You can see in the third quote what I can only perceive as a redefinition and mis-characterization of the source statement and denial of criticism by substituting other argument not germane to the one presented. I must admit, however, that the statement, "There is a huge difference between answering my radio calls and patrolling my beat and doing Police work." baffles me. Also, I fail to see how a 'practical police protest' can be anything other than political. I need to be better informed here.

Now, I suspect that the response was triggered by what was considered a personal attack or insult caused by of my poor choice of words in the sentence as cited above (IOW it was my fault); but it points out how easily information and intent are so easily misunderstood and how personal feeling, anger, and adrenalin release intervene. And we don't have any stimulus here as would be present in serving a warrant.

Let's all step back and reassess what we've just observed then reflect on why there could possibly be some anti-LEO sentiment. Let's also reflect on why there could possibly be some resentment by LEOs of a critical public. But, most importantly, let's observe how easily things can be misconstrued and fall out of control beyond the intent of anyone.

I'm not smart enough to have contrived the scenario, as played out, to support my aversion to NKW and SWAT and the general militarization of LE.
BobH is offline  
Page generated in 0.04051 seconds with 7 queries