That’s a fair point. I thought it was rather widely-accepted, but let’s examine some sources and see. Perhaps we’ll find it’s more myth than fact. I’ll see if I can dig up some scientific studies on the matter that we could discuss.
Those are good measures, yeah. It could be just the blue wall of silence. Or - maybe - there is a culture among cops in which “a bad cop is a good cop having a bad day.”
It’s only that 60% in the middle that I would hire.
People who want to be heros can be firefighters, if they want to make a difference in their community, they can join habitat for humanity.
People who want to be heros who are walking around with a gun are dangerous.
That would be a bad move on the police department.
It would make far more sense to retrain or dismiss the 20% of cops who are causing the problems than to punish and endanger the cops who are not abusing those who they are sworn to protect.
That would be good. Based on my military experience there were some section chiefs who just liked to be downright mean. Not abusive, just mean. But given certain responses to that, meanness could easily become abuse.
Most of these things would.
Better stats on police shootings creates political pressure to prosecute the cops.
“Truly independent” investigations, even assuming they’re truly independent and not subject to political pressure (a reasonable fear, IMO) would at any rate increase the likelihood that cops get indicted as compared to the current situation.
Overarching issue is that you can see in the current situation that anti-cop violence activists believe that virtually every cop involved in a shooting should be prosecuted. If you are a cop who fears that you might have to shoot someone one day, it makes sense to fear any reforms being enacted to appease the current activist group will be used against you.
That sounds like it might increase the anxiety of some cops, but I don’t see how it stifles good policing. IMO, good cops should be nervous about the possibility of shooting the wrong person. I expect the good and decent ones already are, and are thus less likely to do so… it’s the ones who aren’t nervous about shooting the wrong person (or otherwise harming people) that are the problem. If this makes them nervous, that seems like it helps good policing, rather than harming it.
Like anyone else, cops are predisposed to oppose things which increase their anxiety. That addresses your question about the motivations of the 80%.
The “good and decent” cops are undoubtedly less likely to shoot innocent people than bad and indecent cops, but there are no guarantees, and they’re all in a business that requires split second decisions about shooting people, which might be wrong decisions.
We’ve discussed this previously in the context of the “Ferguson Effect”. It’s pretty well documented that cops themselves are - on the whole - nervous about this, and (IIRC) less likely to confront perps as a result.
This is possible (though I remain skeptical), but even if it’s true, IMO the problems with policing are so egregious that this is a tiny price to pay. Further, I think the improvements are in the interests of cops themselves – having huge portions of the populace see and fear cops as dangerous and unpredictable enemies is incredibly dangerous for cops.
I realize you’re not suggesting this is an excuse for domestic violence, but I still have a bone to pick with this statement. If it’s so difficult to turn off your aggression when the 5 o:clock whistle blows, then why isn’t the incidence of violent behavior not much higher in these professions? Clearly the vast majority of football players and police officers are not recreationally violent people. Why are they not plagued with the inability to control themselves.
And I don’t, even know where to begin with this statement. Law enforcement and professional sports aren’t plagued with office shootings; you know, like the kind where Dave in accting comes back to work with a shotgun!
And how does defending your family against intruders correlate to beating your wife?
Our society constantly reinforces the notion that its ok for those in the right to physically harm those in the wrong. The disconnect comes when you think that, no matter what the situation, or what evidence is supplied, that you are the one who is always in the right.
mc
This is a post that comes from a particular cultural perspective that is, I speculate, very prominent among police officers. I think it has more to do with those cultural ideas than with being physical or observing violence in the workplace.
But, that’s my point. The notion that a certain percentage of employees in “inherently violent” professions will be “unable” to turn off the violence is incorrect, and should be dispelled. They are not violent at home, because the demands of the job are overwhelming. They are violent at home because they think they are allowed to be.
Maybe, as mentioned by others in this thread, these types of people are drawn to certain professions. I don’t know if this is true, and, likewise, I don’t know if the premise of the op is true.
What I do know is that unless and until we decide, as a society, that violence against another human is not acceptable, we’re going to have to keep having these conversations.
mc
Well, for starters, the 60% who want to keep their heads down do not want to do anything that would draw attention to themselves, as that might incur in the rage and retribution of the abusive ones or of their well-positioned soul-kin.
But some law enforcement, some military, and some football players (where I have experience) are plagued by this.
Football for example. I played football in college, not a huge school, not a small one. It’s a brutal, brutal sport. If you’re average fan could spend 5 minutes of time at the sidelines of a game there’d be a new appreciation of this. The players are fast, huge and physical. And violent. Our school would trot out the “pretty boys” when they wanted to, but the majority were not the guys you wanted your sister to date.
As I said, it you’re immersed in this, day after day, *and have a proclivity for this to begin with - it’s partially what drew you to this profession in the first place, * it’s hard to shut it off.
That’s why in the military, upon return from a deployment, we’d usually have 1-2 days where we’d try and decompress before going home. We’d have the padre or a medical type council us. No guys, it’s not OK to jack up your wife and kid’s. You shouldn’t call your son a “stupid motherfucker.” You can’t grab your neighbor by the throat.
You want these men and women to do violence on your behalf, and then be Mr. and Mrs. Cleaver when they get home. This is just asking too much of some people.
Does this make domestic violence ok. No. No. No. But I think it’s important to understand why it may be happening.
The job attracts assholes. In order to be a cop, you have to, at the very least, be comfortable with using violence to make others bend to your will. .
Police and military personnel are constantly doing things that they know deep down they shouldn’t be doing, but they are in a position where their livelihoods depend on doing these things. I’d be mad too.
That is not necessarily being an asshole now, is it? Sometimes, in some situations, a level of violence is warranted to make another comply with your lawful commands. And by “violence” here I also include tactics like strong arming and physically restraining another.
Sure, it is necessary. It is also powerfully attractive to assholes. My dad was a cop, one of my uncles was a state trooper, and one of my aunts was a police dispatcher. I part-timed as a deputy sheriff for about 10 years. I have been around a lot of cops in my life. IME, about half of them are assholes attracted to the job by having power over others and the authority to use violence. Some of them grow out of their assholery. Others get worse.
Why does the “good half” put up with the “asshole half?”
mc
What should they do about them? Beat them up? 
Most people put up with all sorts of unpleasant coworkers. Not much you can do about it.
He didnt say “unpleasant” he said “asshole” Would you put up with with your coworkers using unethical tactics (ie: lying, breaking rules, using coersion, being violent, killing) to do their job? I wouldn’t. Would you coverup their behavior? I wouldn’t. Would you blame it on the job, saying "some people just can’t turn it off? I wouldn’t.
WHY DO COPS?
mc