Burnout is very real, however. So is PTSD.
Police defend fatal shooting of UW student
- Thread starter Archangel M
- Start date
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
Were making a HUGE leap between what some LEO posts on a web forum and how they act on the street...judging who has "humanity" or who has lost it via these posts?
Please.
Please.
I agree, but I also know from experience that my level of empathy starts to recede the more burned out I get. I'm not making any judgement on anyone, I'm just saying that after 12 years and two very high stress jobs, I can feel burnout coming on. When my level of empathy starts running low, I can't do my job as well and then it gets even more stressful. Anyway, we are really off topic I suppose.
ATTENTION ALL USERS
Please keep the conversation polite and respectful, and return to the original topic.
Thank you,
Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator
Please keep the conversation polite and respectful, and return to the original topic.
Thank you,
Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator
Well, since I do... I guess you are saying that gives me a right to judge, and I don't think Shesulsa was far off the mark with her comment.
You would never see me at work go "Oh, that MORON ate too many Cheeseburgers and now he had a Heart Attack and got what he deserved, a trip to the morgue. Good for him!" But thats because I still have SOME compassion and humanity. Do I think this guy acted stupidly? Indeed. I also think the cops acted appropriatley. (OMG Arc, dont have a heart attack because I didnt hate on Cops)
There are enough arrows flying in general that one can see why you needed to jump in here.
Candidly, though, I think the specific discussion on this thread between arnisador and sgtmac 46 is one of the best I have ever seen here. It is a unique debate in that the harsh language in question is not directed at each other - there was none of that - but about the demise of the gunman in the incident underlying the thread. While that discussion may legitimately be considered tangential by moderators, I cannot recall an exchange with points on both sides that has made me reflect as much as this one did.
I think drunkenness is just one causation of stupid actions ... but drunk and stupid are not the same. And even if they are, there's no reason to be calloused other than to soothe one's own ego or placate one's mentality to stay on the job.
So ... an analogy would be if you were on, say, morphine and escaped the hospital, somehow got your hands on a loaded rifle and levelled it at police - regardless of whatever the hell it was you *thought* you were doing - not once but twice ... that would make you stupid because you did a stupid thing. Or would it make you under the influence of some chemical alteration?
Does it matter? Well, some of us clearly think it does. Stupid is stupid and drunk is drunk. And yet, no matter, because life was taken. It had to be, of course ... but that's not an excuse to be cavalier. No matter how many times anyone argues that it's excusable, it just never can be.
If a person has to be blase about taking life on the job to save his/her sanity then they could at least have the gonads to be honest about it and admit it. That is certainly more respectable that the repeated desecration of a dead young man who chose to drink or a psychotic person who threatens police with a knife, etcetera, etcetera.
You don't have to agree with me. But it doesn't put cops in a better light than they are because of other bad cops.
So ... an analogy would be if you were on, say, morphine and escaped the hospital, somehow got your hands on a loaded rifle and levelled it at police - regardless of whatever the hell it was you *thought* you were doing - not once but twice ... that would make you stupid because you did a stupid thing. Or would it make you under the influence of some chemical alteration?
Does it matter? Well, some of us clearly think it does. Stupid is stupid and drunk is drunk. And yet, no matter, because life was taken. It had to be, of course ... but that's not an excuse to be cavalier. No matter how many times anyone argues that it's excusable, it just never can be.
If a person has to be blase about taking life on the job to save his/her sanity then they could at least have the gonads to be honest about it and admit it. That is certainly more respectable that the repeated desecration of a dead young man who chose to drink or a psychotic person who threatens police with a knife, etcetera, etcetera.
You don't have to agree with me. But it doesn't put cops in a better light than they are because of other bad cops.
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Because the issue doesn't seem to be one of humanity, but false empathy toward stupid action.....not remotely the same thing.
As to police in general.......the same can be said for the military, but even more so......there seems to be a theme in society of expectations of the police and military, based, I suspect, on movies and TV......that we should be fierce warriors in battle, and 5 minutes later, overcome with emotion, in tears, displaying our humanity for all to see. It's an unrealistic expectation, utterly and completely. The fact remains that social workers don't make good cops, and vice versa.
Situations like this call for men who, under the rules of engagement, have no problem putting accurate rounds on target when justified.......whether they feel suitably sad and contrite about the situation after the fact is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT if they acted properly........but some in society demand that they at least have a good case of PTSD so that everyone can feel better about the situation........it's bogus!
There are a lot of cops who can shoot another man in a righteous shooting, and still feel perfectly fine about it for the rest of the life, and that's OKAY! That doesn't make them a bad cop, to the contrary, that often makes them DAMN GOOD COPS! The key is whether the shooting is justified, not whether he cries in the psychiatrists office after the fact. Other cops have difficulty living with it, and THAT is okay too!
As to the young man who got himself killed stupidly what do you want me to respect about him? All we know is that his actions endangered numerous lives, and caused his own death.......what is to respect? That he's dead? If one wants to be respected in death, they should live accordingly......by their actions and deeds they are judged.......endangering numerous lives is not a step toward that.
Last edited:
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
Little children earn my unconditional empathy......all others are judged based on their actions.
As to MORONS eating too many cheeseburgers......that guy didn't intentionally commit an act that put numerous other lives at risk....key difference!
There comes a point at which you commit certain actions, and society has not only a RIGHT but an OBLIGATION to condemn you and your actions as a whole, alive or dead.
I'm glad that people can be fine and healthy in the job that is an officer, with the need to shoot under the right conditions.
And as arnisador pointed out - it is one thing to be fine with it, to be justified in it, to be righteous (in fact, one must be). But it does come across as boastful, braggish and just plain wrong when it sounds or reads that some are celebratory. There is a line, clearly.
And as arnisador pointed out - it is one thing to be fine with it, to be justified in it, to be righteous (in fact, one must be). But it does come across as boastful, braggish and just plain wrong when it sounds or reads that some are celebratory. There is a line, clearly.
You've got a point; alcohol or drug use is often connected (maybe even causal) of stupid acts, even in people who are normally pretty smart. But, with the possible exception of hallucinogens, they don't put anything into a personality that isn't there already. The guy who's a jerk and an ******* while drunk is often simply a less obvious jerk or *** when he's sober. All the alcohol has done is reduce the inhibitions and controls.
This kid may have been very smart... but he did something incredibly stupid. On two different occasions. He got lucky the first time, and lived to repeat the error. He didn't the second. Combining alcohol (or drugs) and guns is dumb, no matter what. But, I bet if you were to get someone to honestly examine his actions -- you'll find other examples of dumb acts, done while sober.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
ABSO-FREAKIN-LOUTELY! There are plenty of good cops out there who are all screwed up because they think they have lost their humanity when they didnt feel all broken up after killing someone who deserved it.
I believe someone here has already implied that one is a "bad cop" solely due to making light of killing someone who rightly deserved it...that is my case in point.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
Perhaps this is a point for another thread but you bring up an interesting point. Somehow death makes everybody worthy of "respect" these days. I always notice that after the latest street killing of some thug, the news portrays him as the "loving father".."student"..."devoted son"...etc. and then they flash up a photograph of him in his thug clothes and bandanna flashing a gang sign. This type of thing seems to be a close cousin to the "become famous by killing a record number of people" thing. Cant seem to find honor in life so go looking for it in death.
Not the same circumstances as here, but an example of the same phenomena IMO.
There's a certain amount of callousness that should develop if your job description may include taking another's life. Who can say how it will express itself. Maybe through humor. Maybe through cold acceptance. Maybe through substance abuse. I think that if you are truly concerned about that, it doesn't help to blame the people for doing their job. It would help, however, if we focused that energy of developing a society that minimizes the need for such callousness.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
I respect your point, but perhaps a society that expects "softness and sensitivity" from its warriors is the one in error eh?
I think Sgtmac makes a good point. Where do people get their opinion of how cops/soldiers are "supposed to feel" after killing? The movies, popular media and their own "feelings" of how they think THEY would react in the same circumstances. To be blunt..what the hell do THEY know about the matter? The fact of the matter is that they are placing unrealistic expectations on the people they pay/expect to do the "ugly work" of society based on their personal/anecdotal "feelings". And some cops pay the price simply because their reactions didnt live up to what society expected of them...like a nice "healthy" case of PTSD.
True. On the other hand, I think that a society that depends on its warriors to solve all of its social ills is also in error.
OP
OP
Archangel M
Senior Master
100% agreement. We should be the last resort for solving societies problems. Thats why they call us "emergency" responders.
Mark Twain had an article about that . . . I don't remember how to find it now, but he pointed out how quickly the "Town Drunk" who is an embarrassment to the community can become a fine, upstanding citizen, even a hero, within a day of his death. It was true 150 years ago, it was true 2000 years ago, it'll be true tomorrow.
I came in on this late, but I wanted to mention something about the "use of force continuum."
Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."
Not to blame the always-available hollywood scapegoat, but to make a point, my wife and I watch "24" and I use situations in the show to bring up differents points.
One of the things that really bugs me is the depiction of tasers on the show. About twice a season, somebody gets "tasered" and they magically roll their eyes back in their head and go unconscious. Then they conveniently stay unconscious for the required amount of time needed for the story line. In one case, a security guard stayed unconscious for about 30 minutes.
When I talked to my wife about it, she assumed that that was how tasers worked. That somehow they knock you out. If there was a weapon that you could point and fire, and guarantee instant unconsciousness for several minutes, with no lasting side-effects, then yeah, police should use that. I would certainly rather have that than a gun!
Unfortunately, people get upset because they expect police to have an option that doesn't exist. Like "setting your phaser to stun." It's science fiction. When people have this unrealistic expectation, it makes the police's job much harder. Particularly if the stupid people threated the cops expecting to get tasered, or shot with a tranquilizer dart, or something non-lethal.
It's also the same problem they face with the "why did they have to shoot them so many times" problem. People think getting shot with a gun = instant death, with a tell-tale geyser of blood, and the guy flying backwards from a single 9mm. shot.
And of course the old "shoot to wound" argument.
As long as the public doesn't know how this stuff works, we will continue to get people acting stupid in front of cops, people demanding ridiculous types of rules, and the police presence will become more useless, as people villify and shackle them. In response, the police will bond even tighter together, ensuring that there is no accountability for them, since they will believe that they are already held to an impossible standard, for not using fictional weapons to defend the public.
So, please we can help! When you hear someone talk about "just tasering them" talk to them about what a taser actually is, if you don't know the basics, it's not hard to learn.
Specifically, about the family of the student (I just can't bring myself to call him a "victim") who wanted to know why the police didn't "just taser him."
Not to blame the always-available hollywood scapegoat, but to make a point, my wife and I watch "24" and I use situations in the show to bring up differents points.
One of the things that really bugs me is the depiction of tasers on the show. About twice a season, somebody gets "tasered" and they magically roll their eyes back in their head and go unconscious. Then they conveniently stay unconscious for the required amount of time needed for the story line. In one case, a security guard stayed unconscious for about 30 minutes.
When I talked to my wife about it, she assumed that that was how tasers worked. That somehow they knock you out. If there was a weapon that you could point and fire, and guarantee instant unconsciousness for several minutes, with no lasting side-effects, then yeah, police should use that. I would certainly rather have that than a gun!
Unfortunately, people get upset because they expect police to have an option that doesn't exist. Like "setting your phaser to stun." It's science fiction. When people have this unrealistic expectation, it makes the police's job much harder. Particularly if the stupid people threated the cops expecting to get tasered, or shot with a tranquilizer dart, or something non-lethal.
It's also the same problem they face with the "why did they have to shoot them so many times" problem. People think getting shot with a gun = instant death, with a tell-tale geyser of blood, and the guy flying backwards from a single 9mm. shot.
And of course the old "shoot to wound" argument.
As long as the public doesn't know how this stuff works, we will continue to get people acting stupid in front of cops, people demanding ridiculous types of rules, and the police presence will become more useless, as people villify and shackle them. In response, the police will bond even tighter together, ensuring that there is no accountability for them, since they will believe that they are already held to an impossible standard, for not using fictional weapons to defend the public.
So, please we can help! When you hear someone talk about "just tasering them" talk to them about what a taser actually is, if you don't know the basics, it's not hard to learn.
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
éåæ ZhĆ²ngxÄ«n center of gravity
- Latest: Wing Woo Gar
-
