What is it that makes American cops invincible?

Great Debates
1

In revolutions the world over, people have always fought against cops, sometimes successfully.

In Eastern Europe, they pretty much persuaded the cops to come over to their side.

In Western Europe, they shut the streets down for days, effectively shutting out the cops.

In America, it’s a different story. Here, the police cannot be attacked, ignored, eluded, defied, or persuaded to switch sides. They ALWAYS win in the end.

I would be hard-pressed to think of any case in the last twenty years in which U.S. law enforcement personnel

 have been attacked, and the attackers "won" or got away clean, or
 have been prevented from "going after" someone they really wanted to go after, or
 have been kept out of anywhere they really wanted to go, or
 have been openly defied for very long, or
 have been "turned" against the wealthy and powerful by the actions of the commoners.

Occasionally the cops will lose in court, when they do something flagrantly wrong (and even then not always). But physically, at the street level, they always win, like Superman with a gun and badge. Why?

Is it because of society’s deep-seated, visceral support for law enforcement in a democratic society? (Let’s ask those who do NOT feel well-served by cops, or even view them as an occupying army.)

Is it because of communications technology and interagency cooperation, and the ability to rely on backup and resources all the way up to the US Armed Forces? (This would be the technocratic answer favored by police spokesmen. Yeah, like the poor Commies didn’t have any of that stuff.)

Or is it because of sheer ruthlessness and hand-in-glove cooperation with the powers that be?

(Don’t flame me, cop posters. This is a question that should be analyzed because it could not be very good strategy to be overconfident and think of yourself as Superman.)

2

I think you hit it on the head there. The PoPo generally serves to protect the interests of the rich and powerful. The tough part is convincing the vast majority of the population that their intersts are the same as those of the R&P.

The fact that most Americans are lazy and stupid helps.

See you in GD, comrade.

3

what’s GD

4

GD = Great Debates
It’s the forum where this will be headed.

5

I would say that the answer is the endless backup that they have. Regular city police would not have the direct backup of the US Armed Forces but they would have the local SWAT team if the situation merits is. State police tend to have many resources at their disposal. You cannot really beat them unless you can magically disappear.

However, your question is very flawed. We are not in a state of revolution. There is no side to “go over to”. Are you proposing that individual officers defect and risk going to jail in order to help an escaped murderer make it into Mexico?

6

I can think of a number of reasons:

  1. Quick response when needed from a number of sources. (local, other towns etc, state, and federal.

  2. Picking thier battles wisely. If there is a riot they will usually surrond and attempt to disperse. Failing that they have the luctury of attacking at weak point. (Mobs generally not smart.) For example riots in the sixties. They let people burn thier own nieghberhoods, but contained them to that area. I’m sure the citizens of Watts dont feel the police won.

  3. A general sense of respect towards police. Most people arnt willing to challenge thier every action.

  4. Self preservation. Cops catch burgulars that would otherwise be breaking into your house.

  5. Good press: Ever see a cop show when they let the bad guy escape?

6)Training: Cops train a lot. Criminals don’t.

7)Life in America is pretty good. Even homless guys can eat.

7

I’d say that there are many factors that contribute to this. The main one is probably that the cops have the support of the American people. We know that they are out there to help us and protect the peace, we dont see them as evil. If I were to see a cop in trouble on the side of the road or wherever, i would definetly help him out in anyway i could. And i’m sure a lot of people feel the same as me.

Of course, another contributing factor is the backup they have. If a city officer were to get attacked, other officers on his force would respond. If they arrived, and found out that it was something they couldnt handle, the SWAT team, sherrifs department, and surrounding city agencies could be called in to help. If they find that it STILL cant be resolved, just as an extremely large riot, the national guard and state police could be called out. If the national guard and state police and all these agencies, just find out that all hell is breaking loose…then the federal government could become involved, and offer the assistance of the US army, marine corps, navy, coast guard, air force, FBI, ATF, DEA, Border Patrol, US Customs Service, Park Rangers, and Secret Service. And if THAT doesnt take care of the problem…well then we all had better start praying.

Conti

8

TCLOUIE, I’m not sure what you’re asking, precisely, but I’ll take a stab at it:

  1. I think your examples of a revolution or significant social upheaval on par with what’s been happening in the Balkans are obviously very different from our situation. We (assuming you’re in the U.S.) haven’t had a revolution in 225 years. So we really can’t theorize how the policy or military would react or to whom they would throw their support in the context of a revolution or over-throw of the government. Who knows?

  2. You don’t hear about times when the police fail to apprehend people or fail to gain access to a place they want to be because there is an obvious incentive not to trumpet those set-backs. It is true, however, that the police and the military have great resources at their disposal which makes it more difficult to defy or obstruct them. I’m not sure this is a bad thing, necessarily, so long as they use those resources in the furtherance of their legitimate jobs.

  3. “But physically, at the street level, they always win, like Superman with a gun and badge. Why?”

Well, because they have badges and, more to the point, guns – and 10 to 10,000 brothers and sisters in blue. They are intended not to be messed with. Again, I’m not sure this is a bad thing. I have no problem with the cops having extensive resources, so long as they don’t misuse them.

9

My question may be politically incorrect, but it is not “flawed.” You are assuming that because I am questioning the invincibility of cops, I am pro-murderer. It is equally flawed to think that catching murderers is what cops mainly do.

By any objective standard, there are plenty of problems with the cops right now. Here in the LA area, we’ve had corruption, perjury, unwarranted or “mistaken” shootings, attacks on legal demonstrations, even membership in police “gangs”. (Are we the only part of the country that has had that?) Clearly, if cops do not always do the right thing, then it is a problem for cops to think they are as invincible as Superman.

If “defecting” means breaking the code of silence, telling your partners to lay off a suspect, or even physically restraining your fellow officers from going too far, I don’t see what’s so bad about that. If “defecting” means helping a criminal to get away, I think there are a few cases of that, especially when the officer is a relative or friend of the perpetrator, e.g. Rafael Perez and the CRASH unit.

Unless you think everything is hunky-dory with our system of law enforcement, this is a valid topic.

Even if you DO think the cops are just great, you’ve got to be asking yourself: “In an imperfect universe, why DO the ‘good guys’ always win?”

10

Valid, yes. But the question is “valid in which of our forums?”

If your question is “why does the constabulary win all of the physical confrontations I have seen them have with the citizenry,” that is a General Question which belongs here.

If, on the other hand, you are asking “why do we let them get away with winning each confrontation,” that topic belongs in our forum called Great Debates, to debate the topics of the day.

So please let me know which, and I’ll move the thread or not as appropriate.

11

I like the social-economic reasons, myself: America is a rich nation with no interecine conflict (race wars) or deep-seated, violent hatred of government at most levels. If the police want to catch someone, they will because there is no ‘other side’ to go over to. However, it has not always been this way. Look at poor old Serpico: He uncovered amazing corruption in his chosen police force when all he wanted to do was be a good police officer. ‘Scarface’ Capone had the Chicago police in his pocket. But there has always been a saving grace. In Serpico’s example, the press was willing to get a good story. In Capone’s case, Eliot Ness had a hatred of organized crime and the federal resources available to check Capone’s income tax returns. So corruption in the police force is checked by a country rich enough to care about all levels of society and a tradition of being able to change things for the better. We have a relativley unified populace, and can keep it so without a strongman like Tito, so we care about people first and their culture/race/faith second. All of those reasons and more are why our system works.

12

My question was the first one you said.

“Why does the constabulary generally prevail in all of the physical confrontations I know of?”

But I have no objection to this being explored in Great Debates or wherever.

13

Gods above, I hope you’re not an American. If you are, may I interest you in Canada? I hear it’s nice, and has a strong Socialist movement…?

14

I think the answer to this is mainly one of organization. The “good guys” tend to have a common goal, are more willing to work as a team, and are motivated by more than immediate self-interest. The “bad guys”, on the other hand, are more frequently working alone, motivated by their own personal gain, and are more likely to abandon a partner in times of difficulty. This organization makes it much easier for the “good guys” to win, since a well-managed team can easily exploit the weaknesses of individuals in ‘every man for himself’ mode, even if the team is outnumbered.

For a non-police example of this, look at the success of organized crime families in comparison to lone crooks.

–sublight.

15

If you really do mean to ask why do the cops always win the physical confrontations, I would suggest you start by asking if that is really true. Sounds like typical American revisionism to me. I suppose you think the US won the War of 1812 as well? (I think you folks call it something else)

As for why the police are less likely to be overpowered by mobs of protestors in North America vs. in less stable states, I suspect it’s because people have a lot more to loose and less to gain by such action here. We’re more likely to demonstrate peacefully or sign petitions. That’s why Quebec is still fighting a constitutional battle with TROC (the rest of Canada) rather than a civil war.

An innocent Canadian bystander.

16

While this topic certainly dares the prospect of getting moved to GD, it’s not there yet. If I understand tclouie’s question, it’s running along the lines of why do the police seem to enjoy enough public support, despite their recurring problems with staying within the lines, to pretty consistently “win” in public confrontations?

Several sub-currents have bobbed to the surface.

One to be addressed is the comparison to the civil authorities “caving” in relatively recent confrontations with the public en masse as has happened in Rumania and Yugoslavia. Additionally mentioned is the prospect of police officers potentially “defecting.” On that subject, we really do not have a politicized civil authority in this country; i.e., there are plenty of cops on both sides of the aisle with respect to their allegiance to one or the other of the two dominant political parties. Despite the apparent possibility that third party hopefuls are possibly going to become perrenials in future presidential contests, our polity is relatively stable. While we are seeing the vaguely defined WTO protestors from time to time, and people sometimes like to shudder about the militia groups, there really isn’t any revolutionary movement of note active in the United States at this time.

As to non-political issues of the police’ use of force, official misconduct and general mistrust of the police, a few thoughts come:

• Police, and the gun on their hip, are the state’s final arbiter. If you will not obey the law, the police are the force that the collective will of society (the state) will use to compel you to bring your behavior into line. This power to use force is ultimately potentially corruptive (what’s the quote? “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That’s not another Churchill is it?) Yes, everywhere, the policing bodies have the ability to become corrupted, and they do fight an eternal battle with that. You, in the U.S., have more avenues of redress for your experience of official misconduct than you do in almost any other part of the world.

• The fact remains that the police must often use force and therefore must be empowered to do so. Without their having that ability you lose the rule of law.

• Most people in this country recognize that, while the cops occasionally get on them for this, that and whatever (seatbelt ticket, anyone?), it’s nice to have somebody who’s paid to die on call when an idiot with a .44 is taking target practice on your living room windows; and he or she is not likely going to ask or know how you voted (if you did).

Yes, the cops often act in a malicious manner with an apparent feeling of impunity (and are often surprised at what comes). I think that goes with being a cop anywhere, under any system. Please note that this missive comes from a fellow who spent manny years as a long-haired hippie boy who had manny, manny conversations with the police, some of them resulting in slumber parties. I did, often, feel as though my treatment by them was arbitrarily coarse and unjust, and I was right about that often. OTOH, I was breaking laws right and left back then. “Victimless” crimes, to be sure, but nevertheless, outside society’s sanctions.

So, I’ve thought then, what do we demand of our cops and what can we realistically expect? If we need XXXXX amount of cops, how manny “perfect” societal angels can we expect to recruit? Do they all need to be perfect, or do we perhaps just build some safeguards into the system.

The current policing crisis in L.A. makes me think back. The OP’s reference window was 20 years, but here in Houston, if you can dial back just a few more years, we had a nationally notorious PD. I grew up with them, and they were some b-a-a-a-d-d cops. I understand a lot of what was, then, the perpetual enemy’s M.O. We had the lowest ratio of cops to citizens of any of the largest 20 or so cities in the U.S. The HPD cultvated a reputation as being some bad SOBs because, without any available backup, that, however you want to put it: a) respect for the HPD uniform, or b) fear of the HPD uniform was all that lone cop carried into the 30-40 participant bar fight down on the docks.

And, no, they don’t always win.

(bystander, we call it the War of 1812 as well)

17

American cops always win? where do you get your information?

For one thing, they only intervene when they know they can handle it. Otherwise they stay out. I do not think the riots of '68 or the riots of LA can be called police “victories”. Then there was Kent State, and Seattle and…

Well, in DC a few years back, a riot in Adams Morgan destroyed a number of businesses and when the cops tried to intervene, their cars were burnt and they had to flee for their lives. But maybe they call it a victory in the sense that the White House was preserved.

It doesn’t seem to me like police here are any more efective in controlling mobs than anywhere else… except maybe China.

18

I think there are a couple of factors here that haven’t been covered. For one thing, we have a lot of police in relation to our total population compared to most countries, so everybody has contact with them. Almost everyone has been pulled over or questioned by a cop at least once in their life, and everyone knows somebody who has been arrested. They stay in our faces because we have laws that almost everyone breaks, and they are enforced strictly. Tie this firsthand knowledge with the media constantly showing police brutality and other examples of them abusing their power and you have a population that is scared. I shudder to think of resisting the police, and know that if I ever killed one my life would be effectively over if not literally. They always catch cop-killers and they are always found guilty.

They are a large and organized group who fiercely protect their own, and on top of that they are glorified by our culture. You watch police dramas and even the protagonists step on people’s rights and this is treated as just part of life as a cop, it’s hard for a cop to do wrong in our eyes, and even when we know it they often get off. No matter how much goes wrong for them there are always reinforcements and they WILL come out ahead in the end.

19

I have a friend who is a cop. Once, we were talking and the subject turned to street violence. He said, “I have to fight with people every day. I know how. The perps don’t.”

20

You ought to find an old book I read about the early days of the LAPD, called “Thicker 'n Thieves.” It describes how the LAPD acted in collusion with organized crime throughout the reign of Chief Parker (a name that should be familiar, as his name is enshrined on Parker Center and other police facilities).
The book proposes categorizing police departments two types, open city and closed city. In an open city, the police are on the take, and collaborate with organized crime. The theory is that it is easier to suppress major crime if you make a deal with the petty criminals. Then there’s the closed city, where the police make no deals, are not on the take, and make the city closed to organized crime. This is much tougher to implement, it requires doing actual police work. But cops are lazy and they usually fall back on the open city deal.
The book detailed how Parker worked to allow the bigshot mafiosa of the era to run rampant through LA, as long as they made their payoffs. But then, in an astonishing turn of events, the organized criminals ASKED the LAPD to close the city. The reason? They wanted to force all the gambling and prostitution to move from LA to Las Vegas. So the LAPD reluctantly complied. And they hated it because it was the end of their payoffs.

The fact is, the police are a mirror of the criminals they supposedly work to arrest. They are given extraordinary powers to commit illegal acts, all in the name of upholding the law. And in particular, the LAPD is one of the most corrupt police forces in the USA.