We literally had to create further spectrums of extreme going from adding “far right” and “far left” to “alt left” and “alt right” and start using political factions and movement names to describe people who aren’t even part of those groups by have a general ideological or political alignment just to be able to categorize people in any way that is useful. Saying someone is “conservative” in 2020 means what? They don’t believe in Gay Marriage? They don’t think we should abolish all national borders and become a single world collective governed by a magic 8 ball and a system of dice and weather patterns? Or is a conservative in 2020 someone who believes that we should purge America of “undesirables” and fight wars until the world speaks only English and that we should abolish democracy and abolish basic math because vote counting sometimes elects the wrong guy? It’s a HUGE spectrum of “liberal” and “conservative” and the language is always changing and there isn’t always the best...

I would agree on your point Bethorien, with the caveat which I am not saying applies here but CAN apply- that 1. Sometimes conservative or liberal are used to label something and it is the reader who infers it as a dirty word; and 2. While it is imprecise and can lead to division and generalization- often “liberal” or “conservative” are used as dirty words in context to extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism- which most forms of extremism, especially in politics, generally should be dirty words. Simply put, reality rarely exists solely in one extreme. So consistent thinking to the extreme of most any bias is inherently the mark of a mind which is not aligned to reality. A form of delusion. Given that what today we call “regular” liberal or conservative stances would historically be viewed as centrist- those labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” in 2020 are often extremists.

I would agree on your point Bethorien, with the caveat which I am not saying applies here but CAN apply- that 1. Sometimes conservative or liberal are used to label something and it is the reader who infers it as a dirty word; and 2. While it is imprecise and can lead to division and generalization- often “liberal” or “conservative” are used as dirty words in context to extreme liberalism or extreme conservatism- which most forms of extremism, especially in politics, generally should be dirty words. Simply put, reality rarely exists solely in one extreme. So consistent thinking to the extreme of most any bias is inherently the mark of a mind which is not aligned to reality. A form of delusion. Given that what today we call “regular” liberal or conservative stances would historically be viewed as centrist- those labeled as “liberal” or “conservative” in 2020 are often extremists.

Lol. He can join the club. And thank you. I rarely chuckle at myself, but I liked that touch too.

@xvarnah- I never said we were arguing. I said that you can’t argue what I wrote. Because it is legal fact. And as is usually the case, I am still correct. You literally cannot argue what I wrote because you did not read it. That which you have no knowledge of, you cannot argue. Therefore nothing I said is not factual. I have answered your question. You may read and accept the answer or not. That is your prerogative, but your question is resolved which is all I came here to do. You can disagree with the answer or dislike it all you like. I dislike that Coca-Cola isn’t as healthy as water. I can say or do as I like, but short of inventing a new formula for Coke, my feelings on the issue change nothing.

.. prohibition against it, and if you don’t like that risk- stay home. Keep your kids home. Everyone else can send their kids to school or the mall and you can raise your kid at home because you aren’t willing to accept the risk. Well... that’s not how that works is it? Of course there are still risks that pedophiles are in the world- but we minimize those risks don’t we? We don’t just let them walk around without any limits or controls or prohibitions do we? Because doing that would what? Create an unchecked risk that can prevent people from safely exercising their basic rights in public no?

Pedophiles often call themselves or others like them “brave” “bold.” They face the stigmas of society and legal repercussions because they don’t think our rules are right. They don’t see the harm in what they are doing. Now- experts and people with decency tend to say that those behaviors do cause harm and they aren’t acceptable. Who should we listen to on that one I wonder? They can argue that they are fine with it. They feel no shame about doing it and they want to do it. But rules against sex with kids aren’t about protecting the pedophiles are they? They are about protecting people who are vulnerable. Ok. Let’s use the Famousome logic. If you don’t want your kids to be at risk from pedophiles, keep them at home. Why make rules about what pedophiles and willing kids can or can’t do? Put it on personal responsibility. That invalidates all the arguments about transgender restrooms doesn’t it? “Use at your own risk.” Anyone you meet in public could be an open pedophile and theres no...

I don’t think it does. I think it means that we should have a better system to hold powerful people and especially leader accountable for when they break the rules. I don’t think anyone should sleep with kids and because some people want to do it and some people break the law and do it, and some rich or powerful people get away with doing it- that isn’t an argument that supports making that not a rule. That’s an argument that the rule is a good idea and we need to make sure people follow it.

“Just stop man” well. Why didn’t I just say that to you sooner? The ultimate debate maneuver. But if you step back, if you can step back, get some distance from emotion, and can be less concerned with “winning” or “being right” and more concerned with reality- I’m not saying you don’t say some true things. But your points aren’t related. The fact that a person in a position of authority and power broke the rules doesn’t mean that the whole thing is pointless. It’s illegal to have sex with kids. That takes away your freedom to date 17 and under year olds. But they have rights and freedoms too right? So you lose that freedom to protect their human rights. Now, some governors and senators and other people who make the rules- they threw some “parties” with a guy we will call “Jeff.” They did illegal things with kids. They are rich and powerful. Does that mean that because the governor had sex with kids that laws saying you can’t have sex with kids are BS, that we shouldn’t have them?

That’s like giving you kid an hour of driving lessons and then tossing them the keys to the car; and being furious if they crash it. What did you expect to happen? You can’t hold them to the same standard as an F1 driver- and they probably shouldn’t have been driving. They definitely shouldn’t have been driving around other people.

So let’s not set our officers up to fail? Let’s not throw them into a meat grinder and hope they make it through. Let’s give them training and set a high bar so that they know what they are getting in to and we can make sure that they have all the skills and knowledge to do the job as best any human being could do it. We are judging guys who in some cases, couldn’t be expected to graduate a community college or balance a checkbook even, to the standard of this idea of the “elite police officer” when that isn’t true. There is nothing elite about being a police officer. A clean-ish record and slightly more training than a mall security guard is required to get. That’s the norm. And then when they make a mistake they are crucified.

Those times they aren’t though, the times they are already stretching to fill the big shoes we laid down for them and things stretch a little too far- yeah. Those times things can go badly for the officer.

Policing as we do it now our tremendous weight on any individual officer. They must have lightening quick thinking and reflexes but make the right call 99.999% of the time. The must be aware of social and political issues and cultural differences and 9,000 other things all while exercising discretion and protecting themselves and others. It’s a lot. The way we do policing now really requires loads of knowledge and experience to prepare you as well as just being- an exceptional human specimen. But we don’t require any of that. We tell guys who aren’t up to those standards that the bar for the job is low- and they come in and most will do an amazing job working far beyond their abilities to try and fill the role, many will mostly get it right- right enough that most of the time they are functionally able.

We are sending officers into situations where we know this can happen. We know that on a blink of an eye, even trying to do their best, their own lives can be ruined (not to mention the lives of others) by one poor decision or one bad situation that often could have been avoided. That’s not fair to our officers. To send our officers out with so little training? To take a kid who doesn’t understand what they’re getting into and thinks whatever it is they can handle it and their training will prepare them- and toss them in, sink or swim? That’s not fair to the officer is it?

And really- when I say we need to reform police and restructure what Policing means in our society- I say that FOR THE POLICE. How unfair is it to them? It’s a hard job. A very hard job at times. They’re human. They have instincts and fears. When an officer gets scared and makes a move in a panic- shoots the person holding a banana or they think is reaching for a gun but isn’t- the officer has to live with that, the officer will likely face career ramifications or even get fired, increasingly they may face jail time and/or be dragged through a public nightmare and media circus.

A lot of people have implied on past post that I’m biased against police or that I just don’t like the police. I’m not biased against police, I’m biased FOR the society and justice system police serve. If I have to choose between police and everyone else in the country.... derp. That shouldn’t really be a complicated choice beyond perhaps moral philosophy. But the choice is everyone- since the police exist to serve everyone. That which exists for a purpose must fulfill that purpose, otherwise why do we care if it exists?

What’s most chilling to me is the level of training and certification required in general for skills like conflict resolution and other phycology in working with people and dealing with people in non violent ways.

(I’m not looking down on welding. I want to make it clear that comparison is based on real life. Welding is potentially dangerous and a difficult and important skill that is itself an art. I was merely pointing out in sincerity that beginning welding classes often are more serious and in depth with safety culture, and many cessions welding jobs are extremely serious about safety and safety processes. I am a terrible welder and anything important or that I want pretty, I’m asking someone better to do for me.)

If we are going to hold police up as more capable- then we need to require that we can actually certify they are more capable. I mean- seriously. In some states the difference between a guy who wouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun even unloaded in public, and a guy who can carry open and hot on duty and concealed off duty... are a few months of night school classes at the annex where they teach tire retreading and “interpretive welding?” Really? The welding guys probably get more training on safety.

So I don’t think it’s a bad idea that we keep the majority of officers more or less held to current standards, as long as we lower the expectations and perceptions and responsibilities we entrust to them. Every organization of scale needs its general
Purpose “worker bees.” But not even a Target store would trust you with a price gun right out of the gate. No warehouse is going to give the uneducated dock guys access to systems that if used wrong could screw up inventory- let alone put them in a forklift or power equipment they could kill someone with. Hell- most warehouses won’t let you use the man powered pallet jack until you’ve crossed a certain threshold.

But this in between isn’t working so well for a god number of folks. The place where we are- where the general social leaning is to treat police officers like they are cut from a different cloth- experts who know what they are doing because.... they got less training and are less stringently re certified than Hair Dressers? An 18 year old kid has to keep a spotless credit and criminal record, not cheat on their spouse (and get caught), and even when out of uniform they must not engage in conduct which would embarrass their uniform- all that for sub $20k and a level of responsibility equivalent to: “don’t ask. Do what you’re told.” I mean- that 18yo has to surrender their weapon when it isn’t in use and check it out with authorization- and that’s when they aren’t walking around among the US population/ that’s in the middle of a desert or when surrounded by armed trained people in a restricted area. We don’t even trust soldiers to have the weapons access police have.

I think that we really need to reevaluate the way we police. Do you need an undergraduate to write parking tickets in Pomona? No. But that’s the thing. I think we need to make our more “rank and file” officers more like hall monitors. They don’t have the training to walk around with a gun in public all day, and they really shouldn’t have the need for the most part. We should require increasingly advanced training to allow officers promotion and increases in what we trust them with. I mean, we can really go two ways- we can uphold an idea the police officers aren’t just the same as anyone else but with a uniform- that their testimony means more, that their judgment is better, etc etc; or we can just say- you know what? Most officers are just people doing a job- they have about as much or less training at it than is required to move up the prep line stations at a fast food joint, and I wouldn’t trust most fast food workers to carry a gun and have the powers and discretion we give police.

With that said.... it is still a good point on training times. You need to know shallow but broad generals about law from vehicle codes to all sorts of things. You need to know arrest and control procedures, you should generally know some basics of performance driving if and when you even get assigned to a car. You need to know safe weapons handling and a host of related skills. You should have at least a basic understanding of a wide range of often critical topics- and you really should have training in psychology, conflict mediation, and other “soft skill” training to be able to deal with situations in a calm, even headed manner and not get flustered or make poor decisions in the snap. And those skills and that knowledge ALONE take more than 6 months of dedicated study to develop well.