Vex said:
Herself:"the (unintentionally?) disparaging remarks about "Joe Average" above"
Disparaging because they're true, perhaps?
No, Vex: disparaging because they disparage the "average Joe." You might remember him; it is him and his family you are supposedly sworn to "protect and serve." It's kinda hard to do that when you hold him in contempt.
People who are not cops or don't want to be cops plainly don't understand the politics involed in being part of a brotherhood.
So it's like a gang, then? It sure sounds like a gang when you put it that way.
Sorry. Police work is a
job. J O B, perhaps as in "patience of." It is also a position of trust; that doesn't mean the public or the government is obluged to trust the police, it means officers are expected to behave in a manner deserving of trust.
The "politics of brotherhood" are the "politics of the dog pack." It's something humans have; we're not as pack-bound as wolves but it is in us. It is not inherently good or evil, but it can lead us, as individuals, into either, if the pack as a whole is headed that way.
My proof is the comments about how people hate cops because of the tickets they receive for violating the law! Someone even said they wished the cop would get run over so he could get out of a $85 ticket!
That "proves" that some guy hates some cop -- and it's not much proof; it looks as if he's merely venting, saying wild things he cannot make happen in order to salve his embarassent at getting caught. What, you never felt that way, even as a child caught by a teacher when you chewed gum in class?
The truth hurts, doesn't it? And the truth is comments like the ones I'm seeing that are meant to bash the officers that help keep your butts safe at night are what seperate police from "Joe Average."
Could you please paraphrase this for me? I'm having trouble working out what you were intending to say.
The truth is, the police
are "Joe Average." You're us. We're you, or we might be. Like the preacher, power-station worker, doctor or many other workers, you have jobs that carry great responsibility; and like most such jobs, it is stressful and doesn't pay well in proportion to that stress. Not everyone is able to do such jobs -- and not everyone that does them is a paragon of virtue. That's human nature. Most
are a cut above; and that's human nature, too.
Let me say that again, in hopes it will get through: most police -- most people with really vital jobs, jobs that get people killed if done poorly -- are exceptional people, who do their very best. But they're not robots; there's no group of people without a few real stinkers and a few more simple ne'er-do-wells in it; and most groups try to remove such individuals when they find them. But sometimes they can't or won't, and then, well, then it is time for outside intervention.
Lets turn this around, shall we? You say you know alot of jerk cops and maybe a few nice ones? Fine. I know alot of jerk civilians. Not all civilians are jerks, but there sure are alot. Maybe someone will start a "civilian watchdog" program.....
We have one. We call them "police." Perhaps you have heard of them?
But who shall watch the watchers? Who guards the guardians? (Note the original Latin carries the sense of "guarding from" rather than "protecting.") In our society, the people do, through their elected representatives and via the free press.
That is what is going on here. Not "police-bashing." Most THR members posting in this thread and on these fora have great respect for the police; they understand it is an essential job. The concern is for those few -- those very few -- who abuse the public's trust. If you protect those officers, you have made your stand; if you claim it is "us vs. them -- all police vs. all civilians," you have made your stand, and it is a greatly mistaken one. The true sides are the moral vs. the imoral, the honorable against those who who dishonor themselves; in that conflict, there is no "thin blue line," no simple matter of white hats against black hats. Would that life were so simple! But it's not.
"Citizen" and "suspect" are not identical sets of persons. No more than "policeman" and "bully." But all of them do overlap a bit. Shall I try to draw a diagram?
--Herself