This guy was apparently ex-Milwaukee police officer John Bartlett's hero and there are rumors that other officers shared his enthusiasm. While I suppose that this type of fascination with a comic book hero could be harmless, in Bartlett's case it was just another reflection of what a sick puppy he is.
Bartlett is history and the more important question is the collective response to this creep and his merry band. Governments are notoriously unable to do two things at the same time. In a community that is plagued by criminal violence, tough, no-nonsense and thorough policing is imperative.
But its not possible to have that type of policing when it is placed into the hands of emotional retards who are still stuck somewhere in the vicinity of eight years old (and a nasty little 8, at that). Do that and aggressive law enforcement threatens to devolve into war against the community.
A fairly typical response to this type of thing is to adopt a set of policies that severely restricts police activities and to select leaders based upon considerations of sensitivity at the expense of seeking effectiveness in fighting crime.
That would be a mistake. The Punishers, if they exist or ever did, are a huge problem. Street thugs are a bigger one.
But you can't go after the latter without getting rid of the former. This is one of those times where we're going to have to walk and chew gum at the same time.
6 comments:
I find the Turner Diaries angle far more troubling. We need to keep watch on this character once he's eventually released.
I wouldn't expect him to respond positively to his punishment.
And, again, you roll out off-the-rack straw man nonsense. Rogue cops are bad, but watch out for the libs' response which will no doubt kill us all.
This typical invent-silly arguments-for-the-other side-and-then-win-by-showing-them-to be-silly is awfully boring. But, of course, this type of discussion involved in most of the rightwing blogging (and some on the left); it doesn't require any actual or honest explanation of whatever's being disagreed-with.
Anyway, the more interesting intellectual violence caused by your post is that it is based on a comic-book like notion of law enforcement. What you sneeringly dub "sensitivity" something recognized in serious law enforcement/criminal justice debate as a critical element of effective policing.
Now, I recognize that you intended to create an image of cops providing therapy and self-esteem lessons, giving drug dealers a pass because they are black, etc. BUT you skate over a critical problem in Milwaukee.
The lack of "sensitivity" in Milwaukee's policing creates an adversarial relationship between cops and citizens, witnesses, etc. Where neighborhoods feel that they are treated with respect by the cops; the cops have a much easier time doing a much better job gittin' the "thugs," which we all know sums up the police function.
You want to see a serious reversal of some of what's coming out of thge central city; put someone in charge who is concerned about having his or her cops establish trusting and respectful relationships in those neighborhoods.
This is not ideological or all touchy-feely. The notion that policing works better where the policed respect and trust the is basic, largely accepted, modern policing.bpfse
What a hoot -- Anonymous, did you read the linked story for the basis of what you call this "comic-book like notion of law enforcement"?
Uh huh. We thought so.
Anon 7:11
I think you ought to reread what I wrote. I may be anticipating an overreaction that won't come. If so, great.
But you're constructing an argument that I did not make. Police need to have the trust and respect of the community. They also need to enforce the law. Right now, in Milwaukee, for reasons that are partly of the department's own making, there is a tension between those two things. To pretend that there isn't or to suggest that no one ever proposes anything that might hamper police effectiveness isn't serious.
Rick you picked up on what caught my attention:
A fairly typical response to this type of thing is to adopt a set of policies that severely restricts police activities and to select leaders based upon considerations of sensitivity at the expense of seeking effectiveness in fighting crime.
And, yeah, instead of deraling with reality or commenting on actual issues,you "anticipated an overreaction" - i.e., you invented something to be against without regard for reality.
And, of course, i never suggested that there's never been an idea advanced that could reduce law enforcement effectiveness. But, as is the script, you drew a zero/sum game between "sensitivity" or effectiveness, which is deliberate, manipulative deceit. That's what your rhetorical post said.
Now: a new fraudulent strawman:
"To pretend that there isn't or to suggest that no one ever proposes anything that might hamper police effectiveness isn't serious."
uh, ok. and? so? you - like every other republican hack, reflexively deploys this garbage at anything that doesn't come from the playbook. even when it amounts to gibberish. like everytime this nonsense is deployed, it has nothing to do with what was actually put forth.
and, it seems that the bulk of your trial experience is, astonishingly, criminal defense. I suppose insofar as you merely vomit up someone else's playbook, its no big deal; but the effort you make to create the impression that standard post-W GOP crap is actually new thinking, its pretty weird that you also do criminal defense work.
Post a Comment