Nascent police states select for these goons.
apparently the person who called the cops was expecting Andy Griffith? This ain’t Mayberry anymore.
I couldn’t watch very much of that – it was too disturbing.
Look at an old photo from the 1960s or 70s of cops dealing with some civil disturbance, and then at a photo from the last few years. The cops in the old days look like police officers; the cops in the new photos look like soldiers.
The irony is that crime is far lower today than it was 30 or 40 years ago.
That’s not irony, maybe. That might just be “cause and effect.”
Those cops should be tried and convicted of at least second degree murder. If exonerated for some reason, the family should sue the pants off the police department and the individual cops. This is a terrible crime but why does Mark extrapolate to a “nascent police state?” The hyperbole is off-putting.
This kind of stuff seems to be happening more and more. There’s a reason I’m wary about the police. I’m afraid if I sneeze, they’ll shoot me to death. My friends and I have made it a habit of using our trusty iPhones to record everything if we find ourselves in a situation with a cop..,.just in case.
This kind of stuff happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. It’s been in the news constantly lately — the case in Illinois where five cops killed a 95-year-old World War II veteran named John Wrana, hitting him with shotgun beanbag rounds FIVE TIMES at point blank range because he refused to consent to a dangerous medical procedure. The case where police in White Plains, NY, responded to a medical call at a Marine veteran’s apartment and ended up killing the veteran, 68-year-old Kenneth Chamberlain Sr., shooting him with a service weapon and a taser and calling him a “n@gger” for good measure. Police Sgt. Scott Biumi of DeKalb County pulling a gun on a teenager in a McDonald’s drive-thru because he was “taking too long” getting his food, then receiving a slap-on-the-wrist 10-year probation sentence for acting like a lunatic instead of a law enforcement officer. Cops in Texas responding to a burglary call and shooting the VICTIM, a 47-year-old lawyer named Michael Schmidt, in front of his daughter.
As if this sort of thing is not bad enough, the vast majority of the time these officers are cleared of wrongdoing by prosecutors, the very same people they work with every day to secure criminal convictions in court. How is it that we have a system where co-workers of police are charged with investigating police wrongdoing?
This is what happens when police departments become places of employment refuge for the unstable and power-hungry. This is what happens when you militarize practically every police department in the nation, allowing them to strut around in quasi-military uniforms while holding assault weapons. This is what happens when backwater police departments get “anti-terrorism” grants to beef up weaponry, as if terrorists are fixated on attacking tiny towns and villages.
Let this be a lesson to the rest of us…if you ever find yourself confronted by a cop, do exactly as he says and live to fight another day, because the current policy is shoot first, ask questions later.
This kind of stuff seems to be happening more and more.
Hmm. I’d like to see the statistics. The 24-hr news cycle distorts our view of reality.
“Rodriguez family attorney Michael Brooks-Jimenez said Tuesday that Luis Rodriguez was known in his family and his church as a peacemaker.”
“Describing her husband of 22 years, she said he was a loving family man who was a ‘grizzly bear with a teddy bear heart.’ ‘I’m screaming for justice,’ the widow said.”
Lord, give your strength, peace, and forgiveness to everyone involved in this terrible tragedy. And let Mercy and Justice, not vengeance, prevail.
Mark, if I was you, I’d start alternating between stories like these and stories about police doing, you know, nice things. Otherwise, you might become the blog known for comments like this:
“This is what happens when police departments become places of employment refuge for the unstable and power-hungry.”
One of the fellows who came through RCIA with my family and me is a police officer. I thought of him when I read that whopper. Warning that you don’t want to become to cops what The Friendly Atheist is to Christians. Though the FA does, on occasion, give shout outs to Christians who do good things.
Maybe cops should alternate between beating unarmed men to death and doing, you know, nice things. Or they could just stop beating unarmed men to death. If I were a cop, and I didn’t want to read comments like “this is what happens when police departments become places of employment refuge for the unstable and power-hungry,” maybe I’d stop providing a refuge for the unstable and power-hungry and stop protecting my unstable and power-hungry co-workers when they beat unarmed men to death.
A couple months ago I worked a Saturday shift. I work in a large place, about 9000 employees. On Saturdays, it’s pretty empty. Sound carries. I heard a couple employees down the hall talking about a slew of things. Eventually they came around to church. Talking about their churches, their pastors. The young man worked with youth. They talked about how important a good youth program is. The women then, suddenly, said she still thought today you had to be careful. Even in churches, you get people molesting and raping kids. The man quipped, “No, that’s just Catholics.” The woman then responded, “Yeah, I wouldn’t let my kids near one of their priests.” Your charming take on the inherent guilt of all cops, which Mark’s singular focus seems to be encouraging, made me recall that conversation.
I’m not saying all cops are guilty of being power-hungry thugs. I’m saying nearly all cops are guilty of protecting power-hungry thugs. Even thirty years ago, saying all priests are child molesters would have been insane, but saying many, if not most priests and bishops cover up child molestation would have been pretty accurate. I have no sympathy for bishops from the 80s who are upset about the Church’s reputation being tarnished.
If the Church covered-up abuse and protected abusers now, the way it did in the 80s, it would absolutely deserve the same sort of criticism that cops get. If the Church doesn’t want a reputation as being full of child abusers, it should stop covering up child abuse and protecting abusers, which it has done. If cops don’t want a reputation for sticking up for power-hungry thug cops, they should stop protecting power-hungry thug cops. E.g. Instead of the cops’ unions fighting for paid leave and reinstatement for cops who murder people, cops’ unions could maybe not do that.
Again, see my previous post. There are plenty out there that know not all priests and bishops rape kids. But you know, they’re all sure they all worry about protecting them (and have plenty of news stories that keep filtering out that seem to support it!). The point is, clearly not all priests or bishops were part of the problem, even in the worst of days. Same with this.
I have no doubt – none whatsoever – that things like this story will get worse before it gets better. It’s what happens when the society you’re passing onto posterity is going to hell in a hand basket. Societies are made of people. If a society is going there, it’s because the people are. So expect cops, doctors, lawyers, politicians, writers, actors, comic book collectors, delivery truck drivers, and any other group to sport more and more bad apples.
The trick is, don’t go daytime talk show. If we don’t want to be judged because of a group we’re affiliated with, then see Golden Rule. Don’t do it to cops. Just spend some time looking up stories of the good police do. The multitude of stories (and that in a medium not always about promoting good cops). Balancing these facts may make us a more sane alternative. We can either become just one more voice in the Friendly Atheist manner (or the manner of much of the debate today), or we can grasp that one thing that seems to have been obliterated in the internet age: Perspective.
Is there a priests’ union fighting to keep pedophile priests in parishes? Because cops’ unions fight to keep murderers walking beats.
I’m not talking about “cops” as an abstract. I’m talking about cops who pay their union dues and whose unions fight to keep murderer-cops on duty. I’m talking about police departments who don’t punish murderer-cops. I’m talking about cops who tolerate their police departments not punishing murderer-cops. If I were a priest, and my Bishop were covering up child abuse, and I did nothing, I wouldn’t whine about it when someone accused me of being complicit in abuse. Why do cops do the same?
I want to see cops stand up and condemn cops who murder people, instead of giving me a bunch of bull-shit about having to make snap decisions and wanting to make it home for supper.
You’re trying desperately to say ‘No Dave, I want to invoke the Friendly Atheist ‘Guilt by virtue’ approach. Fine. Have at it. You’ll be one small voice in a growing chorus. Just don’t get bent out of shape when people who actually believe what that woman (and what many others) said about the priesthood have their laundry list of reasons why they’re right to think so. And if you don’t think cops do condemn these things, you’re not paying attention. They know there are people who use these things to attack police in general (hard to believe, I know).
Plus, of course, if we don’t keep perspective we’ll probably loose it all – which happens with loss of perspective. Like the fellow from East Africa I talked to a couple months ago said, try living in a military dictatorship. There the ‘police’ drag you into the town square, put a bullet in your head in front of everyone, and then are publicly rewarded as an example. Perspective. Lose that, and that will be one of the surest ways to end up that very way because, like all things, lack of perspective usually leads to babies following the bath water.
So, if I condemn cops for beating unarmed men to death, and I criticize cops for supporting cops who beat unarmed men to death, then I’ll end living in a military dictatorship? And I’m the one that needs perspective? I see your point. It’s just one dead Mexican. Why should I blame the cops who killed him, or the cops who are sheltering the cops who killed him? What’s one Mexican against all these cops?
As long as cops’ unions and police departments stick up for murderer-cops, rather than prosecuting them, I’m going to judge cops’ unions, police departments, and their members for sticking up for murderer-cops. If Bishops treated child abusers the way cops treat murderers, I would judge Bishops the same way.
Also, I have no idea why you’re talking about the friendly atheist.
Yeah. Probably. Because you are simply joining the general tide of human history: only worry about detail when it affects what we identify with, rushing in with sweeping condemnations when we choose. Since crumbling societies and dictatorships are the trend in history, repeating the same old same old will likely end up with the same old same old. You feel about cops the way that woman feels about Catholic priests. I’m sure she has just as many stellar defenses for her perspective (one shared by many nowadays). But it’s the way of things. Just like most on the Friendly Atheist treat religious people and religion in general. Same type of posts, same type of comments, same type of defenses. So have at it. It’s nothing other than what I’ve come to expect. Catholics, ultimately, being no different than others in that regard.
If she thinks there’s a priests’ union sticking up for child abusers, she’s just insane.
You’re not addressing the actual issue, which is that cops actually stick up for and protect cops who murder people. Are you saying cops don’t do that? Are you telling that police unions and police departments don’t stick up for cops who beat unarmed men to death? If cops are responding to abuse by cops the way the church is now responding to abuse by priests, that would be great news.
But they aren’t. Cops are sticking up for murderer cops. I don’t think that’s even a controversial statement, though I’m open to argument. The only perspective I need is that murder is wrong and that law enforcement shouldn’t be on the side of murderers.
I doubt she thinks that. She likely has a whole list of other reasons why she is right to think what she thinks. Just as you do. And no, most don’t defend what they know to be wrong. But you’re not interesting in hearing that. Your mind is made up. As is, no doubt, that woman’s mind. Or those on Friendly Atheist. Or Jack Chick’s blog. They all sound the same. It’s the way of things I guess. I leave you to it. It seems to be the attitude being cultivated by this ongoing set of posts.
Do most cops refuse to pay their union dues? Have most cops resigned in protest of their department being pro-murderer? Objectively, it simply isn’t true that most cops don’t approve of this. They pay money to organizations that fight to keep murderers on duty, and they continue to work for an institution that proudly employs murderers.
I don’t know this woman you overheard once. I don’t know what a friendly atheist is. I don’t care. I have specific reasons for saying most cops support cops who are murderous, violent thugs. There are exceptions; there are some good departments. But regardless of how any cop feels a out his murderous coworkers, as long he’s paying union dues and working for a department that employs, rather than prosecutes, murderers, he is supporting murderer-cops.
If you want to tell me why paying union dies to a union that fights to keep murderers on the force doesn’t amount to supporting murderers, I’m all ears.
The Friendly Atheist is a blog that runs stories flushing out instances of bad/evil/stupid Christians (and other religious types), then tends to let the comments roll, as commenters rush in to point out how horrible it is that stupid and evil religion is (which is out there butchering, killing, raping – you know, Medieval stuff) and those religious types who are part of it. Jack Chick mentality. To read your comments, every police department in the nation has murdering cops who murder everywhere, never get punished, and are gleefully supported by the law enforcement establishment and all those union paying cops who work with them. That type of attitude can’t be reasoned with. Any more than you can go to the Friendly Atheist and say ‘Look, all religion isn’t stupid or evil’, or to Jack Chick’s blog and say ‘The Catholic Church really isn’t all that bad. Really!’ It’s not a perspective based on reasoned attempts to get at a problem. It is the perspective that Marks’ 100% negative posts about cops does seem to cultivate.
How many Oklahoma cops resigned in protest of their blue brothers not getting punished for murdering Luis Rodriguez? How many Oklahoma cops have stepped forward to protest their colleagues behavior? How many cops have raised funds for their victims families?
On the other hand, how many cops have done nothing? How many cops just stood there while the police department issued statements defending the murderers?
I’m making an objective concrete argument. You’re responding by comparing me to jack chick. Somehow I’m the one that can’t be reasoned with? Show me even one cop who isn’t supportive of these anonymous murderers.
How many Oklahoma cops have resigned and walked away from their livelihoods in protest or raised money for the victims’ families, therefore cops are murderers or support murderers? I can’t argue with that reasoning.
You know who lost his livelihood? Luis Rodriguez. If cops cared more about their victims’ lives than about their own livelihood, I’d stop saying that nearly all cops support murderers. You can’t even show me one cop that cares more about the murder of Luis Rodriguez than about his own livelihood.
I’m not saying all cops are murderers. The cops that murdered Rodriguez are murderers. The cops that support the cops that murdered Rodriguez support murderers. Those cops that continue to pay union dues and work for a police department that support the murderer cops are helping to support murderers.
Eta: I don’t think resigning in protest is unreasonable. If I had become a cop and suddenly found myself on the side of the murderers rather than the side of the victims, I’d resign.
No, you say all cops are murderers or are supporters of murderers unless they quit being cops. Fine. Again, I doubt I’d make much headway on other blogs regarding good Catholic priests or good Christians. And they’d all have a list of reasons why they have those attitudes. Same here. I’ve learned I don’t go to the Friendly Atheist to learn about good Christians, and I don’t go to Jack Chick to learn about good Catholics. Likewise, I don’t come to Mark Shea’s blog to learn about good cops.
Nearly all cops. I’m sure there’s probably a good department somewhere that honest men can work for.
Your argument is what exactly? I have a list of reasons, therefore I’m wrong? Tell me how a cop can work alongside murderers, for a department that protects murderers, while paying union dues that go to protect murderers, without supporting murderers?
Do you think there’s over reporting on the murders that cops commit? As long as cops are allowed to murder with impunity, it’s under reported.
When I read this:
“Nearly all cops. I’m sure there’s probably a good department somewhere that honest men can work for.” I thought of this:
“Oh, sure, there are some good things about ’em, too! Look, I’m the first one to say that. I’ve known a couple who were OK, but that’s the exception, y’know what I mean? Most of ’em, it’s like they have no feelings! They can do anything!”
That’s Juror #10, from Twelve Angry Men (1957). Which is why I’ve concluded that I’m probably not going to get anywhere, no matter what I say. And maybe that’s the point.
Show me even one cop who doesn’t stand with the cops who murderered Luis Rodriguez. Even one cop. Show me just one cop, and I’ll admit you’re correct. All he has to do is say that those cops shouldn’t have murdered Rodriguez.
And I’m not talking about bad Henry Fonda movies. I’m talking about an actual real life murder and the people who support it.
First, Twelve Angry Men is considered by many one of the great films in American cinema. An opinion I share.
Second, you’ve made the accusation. You prove it. Prove that the majority of cops are either beating and murdering people, or fully support their fellow cops who have been proven to have done so. Show me the stats. Show me the proof. Even though this is the Catholic blogosphere, I still hold to the innocent until proven guilty ideals. So prove away. Once you show the stats and data to demonstrate this (and I mean demonstrate it: most cops guilty or openly and fully supporting cops who do, actual cases and numbers, not just a few and then assuming they’re all really loving it), then we’ll proceed.
BTW, the reason I’m continuing this is because I hope Mark reads it and says “dear Lord, what have I done? I’ve got to stop the 100% evil murderous thugs in blue posts! Or I’ll be the Catholic blog cultivating attitudes like this!
They work for police departments that protect murderers, and pay union dues to unions that protect murderers. Every single cop in the jurisdiction that murdererd Luis Rodriguez openly supports murderers.
So should Shea not report on things like this? Boo hoo, some poor widdle cops feewings might get hurt. Shea isn’t cultivating anti-cop sentiment. The cops who murdered Luis Rodriguez did that. If you think there’s under reporting of how great cops are, start your own blog and stop whining.
I don’t care what the consensus is about twelve angry men. The central conceit – jurors conducting their own investigation into the facts – is wrong. It isn’t just wrong – it’s harmful. Everyone who watches that movie comes away less informed about our legal system than they were before they watched it. If viewers of the movie weren’t also prospective jurors, it would be benignly bad, instead of actively harmful.
Saying “I said they’re all guilty by association, that’s all the evidence you need” isn’t really proof. Being an expert on the American judicial system, you should know that. By the way, I mean Mark can see people express their open hatred and contempt for entire swaths of our population, most of whom are good people (and many Catholics FWIW) who feel empowered by his posts. Hopefully he’s not wanting that.
Oh, and seeing Twelve Angry Men as a scholarly treatise on our judicial system rather than a dramatic condemnation of bigotry and prejudice would only bother people who think all movies must be scholarly treatises of their subject matter, or who are desperately trying to avoid the obvious theme of justice and a search for truth in the face of bias and bigotry.
I’m not saying they’re guilty by association. I’m saying that they’re doing things – working for pro-murderer departments and paying pro-murderer union dues – that amount to supporting murderers. These cops literally give money to an organization whose job is arming murderers and putting them on the street.
Twelve angry men isn’t bad for getting a detail of the legal system wrong. It’s bad for teaching people the exactly wrong way to approach the one part of the legal system they’re likely to participate in.
Most people don’t watch Twelve Angry Men to learn about how to approach the legal system, any more than they watch Star Wars to learn about space travel. But to each his own.
As for the other, provide the data backing up your assertions, and I’ll respond. Otherwise just spinning wheels at this point. Just going back and repeating your same charges, then please see Juror #10 above.
No one’s going to watch Star Wars and then be a bad astronaut. Lots of people watch legal movies and then be bad jurors.
You have no argument that these cops aren’t supporting murderers. All you have is references to overrated movies and obscure blogs. You’re inexplicably more concerned about the reputation of some murderers and their supportive coworkers than you are about the victim, whom you haven’t even mentioned.
That’s the people’s fault for taking movies seriously in ways they weren’t mean to be taken. Not the movie’s fault. Most people I’ve ever talked to who watch (and praise) Twelve Angry Men do it because of its themes, not because of its assessment of legal procedures.
No, my argument isn’t anything. My statement is that you have made the accusation, you provide the stats that most cops are either murderers, or openly support murderers. Provide the stats and data. to support the accusation. That’s how it works. Not ‘the accusation is true by default of it’s existence, now prove otherwise.’ We passed that approach to guilt and innocence quite a few years ago.
Police departments support cops who murder people.
Police unions support cops who murder people.
Police support police departments and police unions by working for them and by paying union dues, respectively.
Police indirectly support cops who murder people.
Again, you’re saying they’re guilty because you said so. Sorry, too much of a child of the innocent till proven guilty shtick to let that pass. It’s no different than the arguments I can find on blogs like the Friendly Atheist: priests have raped kids and gotten away with it, the Church has taken advantage of loopholes to help priests get away with it, Catholics give their money to support a church with leaders and priests who help priests get away with it, therefore Catholics either rape kids or support priests who rape kids. I know *you* might think it’s different, but it isn’t. It’s the same logic. Unless you have the data to support your accusation, and that’s data showing that cops are murdering people across the country as a general rule, and that the unions solely defend them and all cops support the unions for doing so, then there really isn’t anything else to say. Show me the stats. The data. Or there’s no sense continuing. Unless your views are simply the result of hatred and bigotry, then there’s no sense continuing anyway, any more than there would be a reason to continue trying to convince anti-Catholics that the Church really isn’t about supporting child rapists. Because their claims aren’t really based on reasoned responses to data and facts, but upon hatred and prejudice (see Juror #10 above). The kind that 100% negative post series often engenders.
If the church hasn’t made the reforms that it has, the friendly atheist argument would be exactly correct. If the church’s policy was to protect child molesters and make sure they still have access to children, like cops’ policy is to make sure murderers stay armed and on the streets, then Catholics who tithed would be supporting child abusers, like cops who pay union dues support murderers.
The only measure I care about is what cops objectively do. I don’t care – and fundamentally can’t know – how cops subjectively feel about murderers. The only thig I care about – the only thing I or you or anyone has access to – is how cops react to their murderer colleagues. Do I need to go through each department in the county? Lets start with he one that killed Luis Rodriguez. Zero cops have resigned or done anything in protest. I can safely say with complete confidence that every cop in that department is comfortable working alongside murderers for a department that supports murderers. And based on the number and frequency of stories of cops murdering people, suffering no consequences, and no one on their department doing anything in protest, it seems fair to generalize this at least to the cops that work for departments that support murderers. It would take me a long time to go through each story of cops murdering people with impunity.
Oh, that’s easy. Show me the union policy that says it’s the policy of the Police Union to support murderers and that cops who pay dues know that and pay it out of support. Since apparently actual policy is important. Simple enough. Oh, and if you’re trying to build the case that cops are butchering and slaughtering everywhere across the country, stop invoking the Galileo principle by using the same example over and over again. And by all means, take your time. I’m in no hurry. Just show me the stats that stories like the inexcusable Rodriguez atrocity happen frequently, are common, happen multiple times across the country, are openly protected by the unions (and as a matter of policy, apparently that’s important), and that the cops know and believe they are guilty but openly support them anyway. It may take a while, but remember, you’ve made the accusation. And following the Jesus principle about judging, if I was you, I’d start doing my homework to make sure my judgement was actually founded on facts and indisputable data, and not just sweeping statements that could easily be turned against almost any people group in the world (and typically has been). When you have the stats, come back. Otherwise, no sense continuing the debate. (read that last sentence again, it’s important). I’ll check back periodically to see if you have the numbers.
To quote Vizzini, I’m waiting. Or is it that tough to find evidence for the charges and accusations you’ve made, other than because you said so? Again, another reason for Mark to be cautious when positing in such a manner.