TheAgitator.com
Columbus Update: Foster Thought Cops Were Criminals
Friday, May 2nd, 2008My hunch was right. Derrick Foster’s lawyer says his client was playing dice at a house in Columbus when the police started to break down the door with a battering ram. He shot at them because he though they were criminals coming to rob the place.
Never mind how many regular people get wounded, killed, and terrorized by these raids. How many cops have to die or get hurt before people start to conclude that they’re needlessly violent and confrontational?
you’ve seen too much of this. now you can write the script. take a vacation, Agitator. for all our sakes.
It’s so much fun. There will always be cops salivating for the chance to be first through the door. It’s part of the personality.
If they couldn’t be cops, they’d have to be soldiers and THAT is dangerous.
If they couldn’t be cops, they would be renta-cops.
F4GIB and Adam, what do you hope to accomplish by making sweeping generalizations about the police. “Its part of the personality.” Really?!? You are not talking about automotons, you are talking about flesh and blood human beings who happen to be working in a flawed system that provides current officers with some very perverse incentives. If you denigrate people based upon their occupations, do you really expect them to aspire to do a better job or to think critically about their roles as police officers? We should be reaching out to officers and persuading them to promote change from within. When the foot soldiers realize that the “drug war” is based mostly on hysteria and falsehoods, real change will be within reach (visit the website of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition for a preview).
When people speak about police as if they are a monolithic group, they simply encourage the famous “us vs. them” mentality that is a legitimate problem in law enforcement circles. Also, I’m quite suprised to see someone using “renta-cops” in a perjorative sense on a libertarian blog. If radical libertarians get their wish (and I hope they don’t) your only choice for organized protective services will be private security people.
I blame the training. Police departments around the country are pushing the us vs them mentality. its sad to say but these days, police are taught that everyone is a criminal/dangerous until they prove themselves otherwise. and that is the pretense for these dangerous home invasions. when everyone is already a dangerous criminal they need to rush in with grenades and guns drawn… right?
Because Hummels, like many things, a vicious circle. I’m just doing what the cops do in their actions/attitudes towards “civvies”, judging them guilty until proven innnocent. Given that they are the “power holders”, I’ll let them maybe make the first changes if they want to go back to being peace officers or just police officers who might command a bit of respect. The only respect I have for the badge is to go along otherwise any dissention or disagreement (even consitutionally guaranteed assertions of my rights) will likely fuck me over toot sweet because the officer is having a bad hair day and I dared to “cop” an attitude.
I’ve had very little interactions with cops thankfully, being a good citizen as it were. The few I’ve had though, man they did a nice job of pissing me off, usually just by their attitude. Worst though, was the one looking for the “noise disturbance”. Man, for knocking on my door at 10pm on a Friday night he sure had an attitude. What little he could see into my apartment he could deduce it wasn’t me making the noise. I hadn’t called anything in, thought about it though. I knew it was either the college kids above me or more likely the teens across from me who were known to smoke pot and have kids getting into trouble there (who were likely watching our whole conversation through their door peephole). I didn’t envy his job that night but I didnt appreciate his snarky “tough guy” attitude when it wasn’t needed.
Dave,
I invite you to click on my name and try your persuasive arguments in the forums. Good luck, you’ll need it.
FP: Yes, officers do rely on generalizations, too much in my opinion (especially if it is based on race/socioeconomic factors). But, as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. I will concede, of course, that generalization is sometimes necessary . So, I do not object to people pointing out harmful trends in policing or harmful attitudes that are exhibited by too many officers, which is one of the reasons I check out The Agitator frequently. Certainly, there is a danger that police agencies will attract extremely aggressive types. There is also a chance that the fire service will attract pyromaniacs. I believe if a police applicant lets on that they are interested in police work becuase they are looking for “action,” they should not be considered for the job. This is a sure sign of trouble! I do, however, object to some of the comments regarding law enforcement on this and other blogs because they sound dangerously close to bigotry, which is harmful and tends to dumb down any conversation.
Though I am frustrated with American policing, and many other aspects of our society, I still find the field interesting and may end up working in it at some point. If I do, I will not forget the concerns I have heard from people I know, or people I have corresponded with. These valuable ineractions will make me a better servant of the people and a true peace officer.
Edin: Thanks for the invitation. I have heard of this site and I plan to check it out. I should note that I have absolutely no problem with the existence of this site or with other means of monitoring law enforcement. The system must become more transparent. If the practitioners stand in the way, they are exhibiting professional arrogance and contempt for the people, plain and simple.
I see my hunch was right also. I haven’t watched the news the last couple days because I can’t take the cop-porn. I’m sure they are still salivating over the great military police troops going after these scary drug dealers.
The DrugWar has fostered that “Us vs. Them” attitude. But what’s worse is the media hasn’t helped any by glorifying the militarized approach to policing, by acclimating the public to authoritarian actions such as no-knock drug raids.
How? By illustrating just how dangerous resistance to such behavior is to the public in a barely veiled “See what happens if you don’t immediately comply with the orders of the minions of The State?” way.
The result has been an inculcation of fear on the part of the paymasters of their servants…many of whom have forgotten that their paychecks don’t magically fall from Heaven but are siphoned out of the wallets of those they are often abusive of. That fear has been very useful to authoritarians…but also to criminals.
Criminals are now using that fear inculcated in the general public to take advantage of that fear and near instant subservience derived from it; they’ve begun performing home invasions of their own, masquerading as police. And the more aware members of the general public are reacting to this in a predictable way - by these kinds of defensive actions. It was inevitable, as night follows day, that this would happen. And it will only get worse so long as the DrugWar grinds on in its’ pointless way.
The motto was “to protect and serve”, right? How can this new police methodology possibly provide either protection or service? I personally do not feel protected or served. More militarization of police forces will only lead to more violence on both sides of the law. And just wait till Blackwater reenters the scene upon return from Iraq! The judges must be told to end this home invasion game. This has become a very uncivil society.