Barr: Be nicer to cops!

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
They have to start showing more than they do—the respect and support that law enforcement deserves, and if communities don't give that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection that they need.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member

PrchJrkr

It'll be Fine...
PREMO Member
I'd have to be literally starving to take I job as a cop, now that obama and crew have dehumanized them to the point that they are the enemy in the minds of the rabble.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
How does this make YOU feel, Chris?
I would like to hear an answer to that. I don't think that's a bad message to politicians. Particularly those the pander to the "the cops are picking on me" crowd. If you want respect, you have to give respect. If you want your officers to have good relations with your citizens, your community, then it starts with the elected officials. It doesn't mean you rubber stamp every action or turn a blind eye to bad behavior. Policing the police can be done in a respectful manner. Everyone has to understand oversight is part of an elected officials job but so is showing support for those who have to uphold the law. The two are not mutually exclusive.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Barr's comments make sense from a psychological perspective. You want cops to be better? Then take the first step and be better yourself. Someone has to break the cycle. Given certain "advocacy" groups' low regard of cops and harping on "victimization by cop" we are at the point where cops can't be the ones to make the first step. Too few of them, too many critics.

Once cops start seeing that "everyone" (i.e., citizens, politicians, etc.) is not the enemy, they will start to have less incentive acting "as if." A perfect example of this dynamic is NYC from the 1960s to the 1980s (with positive results remaining through the early 2000s).

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Barr's comments make sense from a psychological perspective. You want cops to be better? Then take the first step and be better yourself. Someone has to break the cycle. Given certain "advocacy" groups' low regard of cops and harping on "victimization by cop" we are at the point where cops can't be the ones to make the first step. Too few of them, too many critics.

Once cops start seeing that "everyone" (i.e., citizens, politicians, etc.) is not the enemy, they will start to have less incentive acting "as if." A perfect example of this dynamic is NYC from the 1960s to the 1980s (with positive results remaining through the early 2000s).

--- End of line (MCP)
Police have routinely been given more and more power. Hell, they have their own Bill of Rights. What Barr is doing is saying that the cops he was there for (like the heroic ones who rescued a kidnapped baby) are the exact same cops as the ones communities are upset about. He's mirroring the "bad apple spoils the whole bunch" by basically saying "you want good apples, you'll eat bad ones too, but if you want to choose you'll get none".

Unions are quick to excuse their officers and even if the officer gets fired (which is rare), the union helps them get another job.

Does Barr expect communities to respect Officer Pantaleo? In the communities' minds, this officer put Eric Garner in a choke hold and killed him for selling loose cigarettes. The DOJ and a grand jury refused to do anything and Pantaleo may get his job back and may get back pay. But Barr can't seem to figure out why communities may be upset that an officer killed someone for selling loose cigs only to be fired and perhaps get his job back?

There's a new law in CA that allows the public to finally see police misconduct records. Dozens of officers are still on the job after being convicted of crimes. One officer was convicted of manslaughter after running over two people responding to a call. I guess the communities there should respect officers who killed members of the community without consequence because they chose that job.

In Barr's mind, and in the minds of many others, the public should simply sit back and shut up when cops plant drugs, shoot someone begging for their life on the floor, continually ignore the rights of citizens to record police, arrest a nurse who refuses to draw blood from someone who can't consent, shut off water to a cell and kill an inmate, turn a jail shower into a torture chamber, text each other talking about how black people are "monkeys", bribery, money laundering, higher rates of domestic abuse, lack of even trying to get a case right, and a litany of other specific examples easily found....because of their profession, right?

Maybe the community should just forget that Kelly Thomas had his face bashed in with a taser by multiple officers while calling out for his dad only to die while the officers who killed him walked free.

Police should respect their communities. Not the other way around. But we're inching ever closer to a police state where everything is illegal and even legal activities are used as justification for force by police simply because the police felt unsafe or because "their training" tells them that drug dealers or bad people may have those same actions.

Police are trained to perceive citizens as the enemy. It's us vs. them and anything outside of complete 100% compliance (even that doesn't work some times) is "resisting" and subject to whatever punishment they want. It's a shame that a country built on snubbing their nose to authority is at this point.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
It's us vs. them...
I'm not disagreeing with what you've said. My point is simply that someone has to make the first step and that the police are not in the position to do so. So we can continue to complain (legitimately) about cops and their actions and give the police more reasons to become more militarized, intrusive, and draconian or we can choose to be the ones to try to break the downward spiral and undercut the police's arguments....

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I'm not disagreeing with what you've said. My point is simply that someone has to make the first step and that the police are not in the position to do so. So we can continue to complain (legitimately) about cops and their actions and give the police more reasons to become more militarized, intrusive, and draconian or we can choose to be the ones to try to break the downward spiral and undercut the police's arguments....

--- End of line (MCP)
Why aren't police in the position to do that? Crime is at all time lows and it's safer to be an officer now than the past few decades.

You acknowledge the "us vs. them" mentality already with police. What incentive do police have to change anything? Especially when they become "more militarized, intrusive, and draconian".

Simply put, those things are already happening with more frequency. Police, judges, prosecutors, politicians, etc all work together and the "little guy" in this country already has little to no recourse for standing up for themselves.

Watch literally any video under a "1st amendment audit" YouTube search to witness the disdain police have for someone excising their rights as American citizens. And what happens when those officers make up laws, ignore the basic principal of needing reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is, has, or about to be committed before detaining or arresting someone? Nothing. Because police have the power. They don't need the community to like them or praise them. They will continue to use the highly unlikely events that do happen to them as justification that everyone they come in contact with is someone who could make them not come home at night. And when that mentality is coupled with "brothers in blue" mantra, the public matters not.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
It's amazing how low the criime rate goes when thefts and property damage under $1000 are legislated to no longer be a crime.

Do the same for Rape, Murder and Armed Robbery and we'll be living in a ####ing Utopian Dream!
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Why aren't police in the position to do that?
Because it comes down to there's more of us (in the community) than them (in the precinct houses). Any moves communities make will be seen more quickly and broadly than anything the police can do. If police make the first move and one of the many anti-police factions take advantage of it the police become reinforced in their thinking that every time they leave the station they're in Indian Country.

There is no good nor easy solution. But I remain convinced as to who needs to make the first step.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Because it comes down to there's more of us (in the community) than them (in the precinct houses). Any moves communities make will be seen more quickly and broadly than anything the police can do. If police make the first move and one of the many anti-police factions take advantage of it the police become reinforced in their thinking that every time they leave the station they're in Indian Country.

There is no good nor easy solution. But I remain convinced as to who needs to make the first step.

--- End of line (MCP)
See, the problem is the belief that criticism of police and their actions is only done by "anti-police factions". I don't understand what you keep saying about "making the first move". This isn't a tit-for-tat. The majority of the population believes police are largely good people because they'v ehad either good interactions with officers or believe the job inherently means someone is good.

Judging by the stats showing less and less police being hurt by citizens, and more citizens being hurt by police for trivial matters, I'm not convinced it's the citizens that need to take the first step in doing what they've always done. Largely support police.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
See, the problem is the belief that criticism of police and their actions is only done by "anti-police factions". I don't understand what you keep saying about "making the first move". This isn't a tit-for-tat. The majority of the population believes police are largely good people because they'v ehad either good interactions with officers or believe the job inherently means someone is good.

Judging by the stats showing less and less police being hurt by citizens, and more citizens being hurt by police for trivial matters, I'm not convinced it's the citizens that need to take the first step in doing what they've always done. Largely support police.
Our difference seems to be you focusing on the procedural and me focusing on the psychological.

The whole issue is a persuasion play, one where statements of public support for the police (and "condemnation" of statements that give validity to blanket anti-cop rants) do two things. First, it's a (moral) high ground maneuver. Second, it's a "look past the sale" maneuver.

If the public makes the first move the public can say that we expect better. Again, go back to what happened in NYC in the 1970s. Perhaps I wasn't being clear when I speak of the public, but by that I also mean politicians who could say you've got our support, but that support comes with us holding you and you holding you accountable.

But let's say I'm wrong; that you disagree. You expect the police to make the first move. What moves would those be? And if any of those moves were made would they satisfy those who have a vested interest in continuing anti-cop sentiment? Until some "assurances" come from the public side we'll continue along a path where the police get more insular, less interested in community policing, etc. In other words, the public will get more of the police it claims it wants less of.

In the end, the whole argument sounds like marriage counseling where one side demands the other take the first step. Well, someone has to in order to break the cycle. And, as I've said, it's my opinion it has to start with those who aren't the police.

I am no blind supporter of the police as I have experience with it being self-interested (at my expense) rather than public service-focused. So I'm not all about turning the cops into an organization with Stasi-like powers. Perhaps that's what Barr wants (though I don't think so). My initial response is to the quote you posted; I agree with that Barr quote.

--- End of line (MCP)
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

See, the problem is the belief that criticism of police and their actions is only done by "anti-police factions". I don't understand what you keep saying about "making the first move". This isn't a tit-for-tat. The majority of the population believes police are largely good people because they'v ehad either good interactions with officers or believe the job inherently means someone is good.

Judging by the stats showing less and less police being hurt by citizens, and more citizens being hurt by police for trivial matters, I'm not convinced it's the citizens that need to take the first step in doing what they've always done. Largely support police.
What there needs to be is a concerned effort, grassroots, tree roots, for the creation of a Uniform Code of Policing Justice, (UCPJ), adopted at the Federal, and State level, in all 50 States. Just like the UCMJ for the Military. And enforce the hell out of it. The only difference? A Courts Martial type trail, would be comprised of civilians. These folks want to play soldier against the citizens? Then there must be hard and fast rules to weed out and punish those to be held accountable for their actions.
 
Top