---

I don't see the problem

The officers are calm, cool and collected. One is in complete control of his pepper spray can and is dispensing it with complete control over the situation, while other officers calmly, but sternly keep ne'er-do-wells from disrupting this dispensing of justice. Then another steps up to add a little extra spay for good measure. After all, the protestors were warned that they must leave. It only makes sense that police should have the authority to execute punishments on the spot and without judicial review. No wait,... dispensing justice is not what he was doing. They were subduing an unruly and dangerous line of seated people.

Some officers were reprimanded and could still face other censure. The Occupy movement doesn't know what they want and attracts outspoken people from a large and growing pool of unemployed people.

The police were charged with executing an eviction order, but things got out of control. The situation turned in ways for which the police had not prepared. The problem is not solved by punishing the officers involved. The problem is a systemic law enforcement corporate culture which replaces the historical law enforcement charter of "dutiful executor of court orders" instead with "aggressive dispenser of punishment for moral failings (or disrespect for the law) (or disrespect for me)" Some officers believe his or her personal morality is undeniably correct, but describe their belief with the phrase "People just don't have respect for the law anymore."

Has humanity really undergone an evolutionary change in our brain chemistry over the last twenty years which makes us less respectful. Or is there a simpler explanation? Has some complex choreographed interplay of diverse societal, economic and religious factors worked together to generate an underlying disrespect in some, but not in police officers who are carefully selected out of the general population because they are unaffected by this insidious pressure? Or is it even simpler? Has centralized systems of government simply proven inadequate dealing with the stresses of increasing constituencies and resolve this inadequacy by increasing regulatory response? Fear of loss of control has been the author of most of mankind's ills.

When the work flow doesn't go the way a practitioner of any profession expects, a dutiful and responsible practitioner backs off to re- evaluate the situation and seeks counsel to reassess how to proceed. Irresponsible practitioners "damn the torpedoes" and forge ahead.

Imagine a plumber who finds that the day's job site proves different than that for which he had planned. He discovers this when he breaks a pipe where none should have been and water sprays everywhere. Which is the wiser plumber? The one who forges ahead with the game plan anyway or the one who stops, changes gears, deals with the burst pipe alone and comes back the next day to reassess the job?

Considering there was no imminent danger to anyone, when the officers faced greater resistance than they expected, they should have reported back to their superiors and awaited a reconsideration of the response. Any isolated instance of violence can be dealt with completely independently from the eviction.

The solution lies in finding means to install this response mechanism in the police corporate culture. Not deal with individual officers punitively. Each officer currently employed must be evaluated for his or her rational capacity for determining appropriate response under such a more developed regime. If incapable, he or she is better suited for another line of work.

If this law enforcement corporate culture of increasing regulatory response is allowed to continue and if employment does not rise, these two forces are not a recipe for a peaceful and prosperous next couple of decades.

email link to a friend
tweet
status

Share this discussion with your friends   

Know an expert on this subject? invite them

Subscribe to be notified of posts

Recommend this discussion to a friend

Their email
Your name
this discussion with a friend.


To prevent web bots reckless use of email, please delete the word that does not belong.

to receive emails when
new comments are posted.
Your email

Email addresses are never shared with anyone

Post a new Socratic Query

To prevent web bots spam disruptions, please delete the word that does not belong.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         April 18, 1am

   

8 Posts

              0    0  

Socratic Query #1
   Ian   wrote more than a year ago

People have gotten less respectful less intelligent and less patient. Contrast with another hypothetical demonstration. People arrive set up dont break trespass laws clean up and go home. Lather rinse repeat as long as needed. They eject trouble makers and cooperate with the cops.

The should be aware the cops are looking for excuses. Don't give them one. If you are demonstrating legally the cops can't do a thing. They won't risk YouTube exposure. Demonstrations attract borderline lawlessness and they screw things up. You don't have to disrupt society around you to get your message out. You just have to think outside the box.

Ian

If I felt strongly about the protest causes you would have seen me on tv already.


Respond to this query     No Responses to this query yet

To prevent web bots spam disruptions, please delete the word that does not belong.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         April 18, 1am

   

              0    0  

Socratic Query #2
   Paul   wrote more than a year ago

Jerry,

It takes a Kent State before the general population gives a damn...

Just say'n.


Respond to this query     No Responses to this query yet

To prevent web bots spam disruptions, please delete the word that does not belong.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         April 18, 1am

   

              0    0  

Socratic Query #3
   John   wrote more than a year ago

Jerry,

I thought the situation was the protestors were blocking an entrance and had repeatedly been asked to move. The police and protestors tend to get injured when the protestors are physically pulled away and carried from where theyre not allowed to be.

I understood that this was relatively mild incentive to make people move. Seems safer than a bunch of cops bending over and picking people up. What other option is there?


Respond to this query     1 Response

To prevent web bots spam disruptions, please delete the word that does not belong.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         April 18, 1am

   

Hide all but last response

              0    0  

Response #1 to Q3
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

I believe you understand the situation correctly.

But consider the issue more generally. while the occupy protesters probably don't even know what they want, so far they have not resorted to violence. These particular protesters were certainly peaceful. If the movement is confronted by increasing levels of force, how much longere do we think their passiveness will last?

As i pointed out the collision of these two forces does not spell a peaceful and productive future.

Given only that information available from the picture, there are two alternate more effective responses that come immediately to mind. The broader problem is that current law eenforcement corporate culture fails.

I tried to intrude the broader picture in my email, but am disappointed by my communicative inadequacy.

Jerry

              0    0  

Socratic Query #4
   Brandon   wrote more than a year ago

Tis the man in the ring, and not the critic, who is to be championed. -TR (parphrasd)

Though i do not disagree this could have been handled differently, perhaps one should at least take a short walk in the shoes of a policeman before finding fault..


Respond to this query     Click to See all 2 responses Hide

To prevent web bots spam disruptions, please delete the word that does not belong.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         April 18, 1am

   

              1    0  

Response #1 to Q4
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

Doing the right thing is the easier part. It is knowing what the right thing is which is the harder part.

I know what you mean, but the man at the point of the knife is often the man who first drew the knife.

Like I said, in the email "If this law enforcement corporate culture of increasing regulatory response is allowed to continue and if employment does not rise, these two forces are not a recipe for a peaceful and prosperous next couple of decades."

For some reason people seem chose those whom they defend irrationally.

Yeah, I know some platitudes too.

Hide all but last response

              0    0  

Response #2 to Q4
   Brandon   wrote more than a year ago

I once vacationed in the southern Platitudes....extraordinarily pithy this time of year.

Its knowing who and who not to shoot in Afghanistan that makes the mission a hard nut to crack. The answer to that question is often only evident once you're been added to the ranks of the KIA.

I feel ya though, times are changing...

              1    0  

Socratic Query #5
   Jerry   wrote more than a year ago

A police force protects the citizenry. A military fights the enemy. If the purpose of government is to "insure domestic Tranquility ...and... promote the general Welfare" their first order of business is to ensure those two forces never mingle, because when those cross purposes mingle, the citizen becomes the enemy.

"Cops are under a lot of stress, but they do more good than bad." While this statement is a common defense for the actions of individual police officers who end up in the news, this statement is rationally worthless. Consider replacing "cops" with "air traffic controllers." Far greater stress, more responsibility, yet no one proposes that an air traffic controller who fails to deal with his stress or who fails to make tough decisions correctly EVERY TIME should keep his job.

Are unqualified cops better than fewer cops? Which would you rather, fly less often or fly under the direction of an unqualified air traffic controller?

Our Goal; In every decisions, work toward this end.

The very need for a police force is a failing of government. There are historical examples of great societies which had no need for armed forces. "The entire area was densely crowded with habitations; and the canal and the largest of the harbors were full of vessels and merchants coming from all parts, who, from their numbers, kept up a multitudinous sound of human voices and din of all sorts night and day." --Plato. Archeology confirms, this ancient city-state, Akrotiri, had no armed forces.

It's government had devised means to secure it against even foreign invaders with out force. Anthropologists are still studying those means. We can not yet read their writing. It does not survive to our time, but for reasons which likely surprise those who rely upon force to secure public safety. This ancient society survived fives times longer than the U.S. has existed and might still survive today if the largest caldera volcanic eruption in the history of civilization hadn't obliterated it 3700 years ago.


Respond to this query     No Responses to this query yet

To prevent web bots spam disruptions, please delete the word that does not belong.

Name
Where are you from
Email address Hide

Your Comment:         April 18, 1am