Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeke
Interestingly enough, I can: although it's likely to irate the masses.
Once you've decided to arrest, any risk of "death or serious bodily harm" to the arrestee is -- essentially -- meaningless if you can enunciate even the barest theory that not effecting arrest as rapidly as possible might lead to potentially increased danger for the arresting officer or surrounding civilians. That's an easy sell, here.
This guy got fired because his boss is afraid of bad publicity, not because he doesn't believe he was right. In the end, the law will protect the officer but they'll find some manner in which to exchange $$$ and do it where the local department can act all community policing. There'll be zero professional mar and the officer will be made financially whole in a closed agreement. If that doesn't occur, the Department will be financially gutted by the Union. This officer did his job.
If he wanted his job back, he could get it but -- given a payday -- who cares?
|
So it would be fine just to shoot everyone and arrest no one, wouldn't it? That would offer the
quickest result with the
least danger to the officer and third parties, and those are the
only criteria that matter, according to you.
Security-think, which is what I call the value-set you commonly favor us with here, is basically driven by the criminal = enemy equation, with the instinctive motivation to destroy enemies utterly trumping all other considerations. The ideology concerns itself almost exclusively with technique with the goals of the technique hardly ever questioned, and thus an institutional bias toward brutality becomes codified. The liberal individual rights philosophy embodied in our constitution, that would hold that 'subjects' in the field have rights, and that their welfare matters, is simply off the radar, not a consideration.
I mean, Ike, do you see any drawback to the 'shoot them all' strategy, other than certain hassles with the legacy legal system?
10-30-2015, 05:00 PM
Threaded Mode