Police Hiring Practices
Most departments have shockingly little screening of their officers.
AP (“With DUI-related ejection from Army, deputy who killed Massey should have raised flags, experts say“):
The Illinois sheriff’s deputy charged in the shooting death of Sonya Massey was kicked out of the Army for the first of two drunken driving convictions in which he had a weapon in his car, authorities said, but that didn’t stop multiple law enforcement agencies from giving him a badge.
Before his policing career began with six jobs in four years — the first three of which were part time — 30-year-old Sean Grayson was convicted twice within a year of driving under the influence, which cost him his hitch in the military.
The convictions plus his previous employment record should have raised serious questions when the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Department hired him in May 2023, law enforcement experts say.
Grayson, who has since been fired, is charged with first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm and official misconduct in the death of Massey, a 36-year-old Black woman who had called 911 about a suspected prowler at her home in Springfield, 200 miles (320 kilometers) southwest of Chicago. Grayson, who is white, has pleaded not guilty.
“Six jobs in four years should have raised a red flag. And you would ask why he wasn’t hired full time in any of those (part-time) jobs,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. “Combined with a track record of DUIs, it would be enough to do further examination as to whether or not he would be a good fit.”
Grayson, who enlisted in the Army in 2014, was charged with DUI in Macoupin County, just south of Sangamon County, after traffic stops on Aug. 10, 2015, and again on July 26, 2016.
The first DUI led to his discharge from the military in February 2016 for “serious misconduct,” according to a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel information, adding that Grayson had an unregistered gun in his vehicle.
Macoupin County State’s Attorney Jordan Garrison confirmed that police found a gun in the center console, but Grayson did not face a weapons charge because he was a resident of Fort Riley, Kansas. Kansas has an open-carry firearms law.
Grayson received a general discharge under honorable conditions — rather than an honorable discharge — because he was charged by a civilian law enforcement agency and his military service otherwise was good.
His attorney, Daniel Fultz, declined to comment Monday.
A misdemeanor DUI charge doesn’t by law preclude someone from serving in law enforcement, said Sean Smoot, chairman of the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board, but a hiring agency can certainly consider it.
“Some police departments would not have hired someone with one DUI,” Smoot said. “I am shocked an agency would hire someone with two DUIs, but multiple agencies apparently did.”
Rather obviously, this is not a man who should have had a badge and a gun. But police and sheriff departments around the country have wildly different screening practices and, in many cases, are rather desperate for applicants and not all that choosy. Further, a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions can mean just about anything and privacy laws and policies make further inquiry next to impossible. The anonymous source who supplied the AP with detailed information is almost certainly in violation of the law for doing so.
Massey’s father, James Wilburn, has demanded the resignation of Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell. “He does not intend to step down,” Campbell spokesman Jeff Wilhite said.
A statement from Campbell’s office indicated that the county merit commission and state law enforcement board recommended Grayson’s certification as an officer despite the DUIs, and he passed a drug test, criminal background check, psychological evaluation and 16-week academy course.
Again, that’s more than many departments require. And the fact that the DUI arrests didn’t even show up—or matter—on the criminal background check is telling.
Honestly, the Army record isn’t the main red flag for me.
Before he came to Springfield, Grayson worked for a year as a deputy sheriff in Logan County, just to the northeast. According to a report obtained under a public records request, he was told he needed more training, including “high-stress decision-making classes,” in November 2022 after he failed to follow an order to halt a high-speed pursuit, reaching speeds of 110 mph (177 kph) before colliding with a deer.
When he applied at Logan, an employment report from Auburn, south of Springfield, where he had worked previously, showed that while Grayson was always early for work, eager for training, receptive to criticism and had not faced disciplinary action, he struggled with report writing, was “not great with evidence — left items laying around office” and was “a bragger.”
The Logan County records also include complaints of misconduct from two people Grayson arrested, including one in which a woman who admitted having drugs in a body cavity claimed Grayson gave her a glove and told her to remove the contraband in front of him and another male officer. She later was taken to a hospital to have it removed and claimed Grayson burst through the curtain during the procedure. He denied both complaints and resigned from Logan County before the investigation was complete.
This is not the least bit uncommon. Officers who get into trouble at one department are often able to simply resign and sign on elsewhere. There’s always a department willing to hire an experienced officer, which saves the cost of training and paying them for a probationary period when they can’t operate on their own.
In the body camera video from the night of the shooting, Grayson and another officer find no evidence of a prowler and wait several minutes for Massey to answer, during which time Grayson makes a comment that she’s dead inside and calls impatiently for her.
Massey, who had suffered mental health issues, appears confused and says, “Don’t hurt me.” Grayson responds at times in a condescending or impatient manner.
“His conduct before, during and after suggests that this guy was a loose cannon, and that’s being polite,” said Kalfani Ture, a former police officer, now assistant professor of criminal justice at Widener University in Chester, Pennsylvania, and an instructor in the New York Police Department’s academy.
Being a loose cannon, alas, is not the least bit unusual. While I suspect the vast preponderance of officers are good folks trying to help their community, there are also a lot of bullies and warrior wannabes carrying guns and wearing badges.
“But police and sheriff departments around the country have wildly different screening practices and, in many cases, are rather desperate for applicants and not all that choosy.”
Hmm. Isn’t this pretty much the same thing we just read in the William Calley post?
And of course the more cases like this one pretty much guarantees that good applicants will not step forward because who wants to work with losers like this.
I think a lot of cops get a certain amount of joy from telling other people what to do. It has the force of law behind it. Who wants to spend a night in jail for “failure to comply with a lawful command”?
@Not the IT Dept.:
It’s very similar. During normal times, we’re incredibly picky about who we commission and promote. But during times of high demand, standards inevitably decline. The elite big city departments (NYPD, LAPD, CPD) pay well and can be pretty choosy most of the time. The Pundunk County Sheriff’s Department often pays poorly and takes who they can get.
@OzarkHillbilly: Or get their head cracked open over it, either.
@James Joyner:
Perhaps it’s time to add another constitutional amendment: there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
You won’t have a first class, effective police force without paying for it.
And I expect that every last one of those good folks look the other way when there is a loose cannon being loose.
And 28% of those good folks physically abuse their spouses. Or maybe the police are 28% loose cannons. (Snopes debunks the more common 40% claim, kind of)
We need police, but we shouldn’t pretend that rhe police we have are anything other than thugs in blue that we point sort of vaguely at criminals and hope for the best.
@James Joyner:
This is true–and in all fairness, we are at a moment where there are more jobs in law enforcement than there are currently sworn officers.
However, one (of the many) big differences between Military service and being in law enforcement is the extreme fragmentation of the latter. There are approximately 18,000 separate arresting agencies inside the US. And for the most part they are completely separate. They may or may not share files with each other. So, in that respect, there is no actual “permanent record” that follows any given officer from job to job.
The vetting is largely voluntary (getting to James’s point: “But police and sheriff departments around the country have wildly different screening practices and, in many cases, are rather desperate for applicants and not all that choosy.”). So, it’s entirely possible that Sherrif’s department never saw the employment report from Auburn.
BTW, this fragmentation is exactly the sort of thing that makes police reform so challenging.
I couldn’t agree with you more. And who in their right mind would? But the issue isn’t recognizing the problem, it’s doing something about it.
Bernius. (correctly) notes that there is a hiring deficit. Self policing (heh, see what I did there) is problematic. Hell, we are still in the midst of an absolute fraud perpetrated upon the US by media and party about Joe Biden’s actual impairment.
I don’t have an answer. If I did, id give it. But let’s get real. 51 “intelligence officers” lied through their teeth about Hunter’s laptop. Russia, Russia, Russia was just a Obama/Biden/Comey/Clapper approved HRC dirty op. Separately, 20 strange and unnecessary LLC’s were created to obfuscate and launder bribes, and then fund Biden family wives and grandchildren for their “erudite” foreign policy expertise.
And now we have media claiming KH had nothing to do with the border, and didn’t take liberal policy positions, easily findable on tape. (Who ya gonna believe, me or your lyin” eyes?)
I completely agree with you, but it seems the outrage is very, very selective.
@Matt Bernius: The fragmentation also affects operational coordination. It was a big deal in Cincinnati ten plus years ago when the IIRC couple dozen police agencies within the county agreed to standardize radio frequencies and share a dispatch center.
I have to tell an anecdote on police fragmentation. Forty years ago I lived outside Rockford IL. The county parks department ended the year with a budget surplus, so they decided to set up their own cop shop rather than rely on the sheriff. They set up a little office, hired about six officers and bought a couple of cars. They couldn’t afford any more officers, so they recruited civilian auxiliaries. A friend and coworker signed up. One morning he showed up at work with a bandage across his nose and his face black and blue. “What happened?” The previous night he’d been riding shotgun with one of the officers. They pulled into a rural park that closed at sunset, but they saw taillights down by the river. They assumed it was kids parking. The officer decided to sneak up on them, turned off his lights, and drove straight into a tree. This was pre air bags and they didn’t wear seat belts supposedly because of the cop stuff they were wearing. Low speed, so neither seriously injured. They got help almost immediately because the taillights were the other park cop car, who heard the crash. I damn near ruptured myself keeping a straight face through that story.
@Kathy: Police forces are about the how of societies where people being protected by the law but not constrained by it and people are constrained by it but not protected. No one expects competence above cracking the right heads, and they certainly don’t want to pay significant money for it. Dumb sociopathic thugs can handle the task for bargain prices. I only wish the problem was that we wanted a free lunch.
@Jack: Not only do you not have an answer, you don’t even have the ability to make a statement that avoids partisan hackery and disinformation about irrelevancies. smh
Couple of things to note. First, some cities/states have it in their contracts with the police unions that limit the detail of info to another force if an officer leaves due to bad behavior and seeks a job elsewhere. Second, the training period as noted above was 16 weeks. The US average is 21 weeks and in Europe it’s generally over a year and up to 3 years.
Last, having worked pretty closely with police in some prior jobs my sense is that the very large majority are decent people trying to do a job that can be difficult at times. Like most professions there is a bell curve and there is a tail of people that should never have been a cop since they dont have the skills or aptitude for it. In marginal departments and ones that require minimal training that tail is larger. However, through most of our history police have gone to extremes to protect those in that tail and for whatever reasons much of the general public has gone along with that effort. I suspect for many it’s their certainty that they will never face bad policing and they dont care about those who do.
Steve
@just nutha:
Partisan hackery Hmm. Never seen that here, right? Even though every word I wrote is true.
Thank you for your banal response.
My late father was a big city police officer for nearly 30 years.
A few years ago, during a spate of questionable police-initiated shootings, I discussed this topic with him. He said (1) that the times are different now than when he was a beat officer back in the 50’s and 60’s, and (2) that the background of many officers coming into police forces now was very different than when he came on in 1950. Dad was a WW2 veteran, as were most of his police and firefighter friends. Today of course we have a diffent profile for incoming.
In his nearly 30 years of service my father, an expert marksman, never fired his revolver in the line of duty. He said that he understood that deadly force was a last resort. Today it feels like that my father’s understanding is not the rule.
@steve:
Great points.
I’m a union member and organizer. While I will defend the importance of unions, I also think that the level of control that police unions have over municipalities is really counter-productive (and really doesn’t match private sector unions). You cite two examples that I think are really interrelated:
Without a doubt, union contracts that are designed to protect police from unfair prosecutions are all too often used to protect the “bad apples” that ruin the barrel. That’s before we get to all the protections the courts have “found” within the Consitution to protect police departments as well.
As to why the general public turns a blind eye to this, I think a lot of it comes down to (1) the origins of the US police force in slave patrols and union busting and (2) “copiganda” that portrays the majority of police work as dealing with “the worst of the worst” (who, let’s not forget, are usually portrayed as minorities and communal outsiders). Combine that with media starting around the 1970’s that suggests that the reason crime is rising is laws that “handcuff” the police, and you have a constant drum beat that the police are our last, best line of defense against the end of civilization (and it’s sometimes necessary to break the law to keep the peace).
The problem isn’t with the bad cops, its with the good cops who see and do nothing.
Most police departments operate like the churches or colleges when a scandal breaks, which is to treat it as a PR problem and make it go away by silencing the messengers.
@Chip Daniels:
I see this sentiment a lot. While I understand the perspective, this points to a structure vs agency issue.
Because of things like contracts, there honestly is very little for “good cops” to do. The structure of police/municipality contracts, not to mention the structure of each police department, really limits the agency that any individual police officer has to deal with a problem officer. Beyond filing an internal report and cooperating with any internal investigations, there really isn’t much for an officer to do (other than try to distance themselves from that individual).
We imagine sweeping moves like “going to the press.” While that sounds good to us, it often has very little impact on the offender in question and can make that “good cop/sheriff’s” life hell (because they went outside of the chain of command). That also means that it can threaten their livelihood (and their family’s finances). BTW, there are far less union protections for a violation like that.
If you do lose your job, you will most likely have to move to a new jurisdiction and potentially lose your existing pension and other retirement benefits. Those are major incentives for toeing the line.
For many, staying “silent” (or, often not taking steps beyond reporting bad behavior) is a deeply rational choice. If the structure doesn’t support radical agency, then radical agency is really, really hard to take.
I wonder what the official police reports were. Because the other officer on scene would have filed one too. The George Floyd case only went forward because of bystander video, the official police reports (to my understanding) claimed everything went by the book, none of the many officers there reported any issues. And that’s why people get pretty sour on the police.
@Matt Bernius:
One can’t disagree – there’s plenty of historical stories of cops who report issues having negative consequences.. anything from rats in the locker to being set up to be killed (like Serpico).
But the functional result tends to be: If you have one bad cop and 99 cops who say nothing and let him/her get away with it, you have 100 bad cops. (maybe that’s overly cynical but..)
@Matt Bernius:
I’m definitely pro union but it’s always interesting how Republicans are always trying to stamp down on every union except the police unions.
@546″>Assad K:
Those are especially spectacular examples. From what I understand, things are typically far less dramatic. An officer files a complaint, you might piss off some of the targeted individual’s friends, and ultimately not much comes of it for union/other reasons.
Bad officers are a very open secret in law enforcement and prosecutor departments. Heck, prosecutors keep a “Brady-Giglio list” of officers who they know they can’t prosecute cases from because of past violations. I’ve been in conferences where people talk really openly about that and how hard it is to get rid of those officers.
Matt- Before I was a doc I worked at mental health emergency centers. One of my centers, I worked at 2, joined 1199C, a Teamsters union. It made a huge difference. We were working in a high crime area in West Philly. It was at the time when pts were let out of institutions but we were always short on private hospital beds. We routinely held 5 or 6 psychotic, often violent, pts for days in very crowded conditions until we found a bed. Several of us got hurt. We were only allowed to have 2 staff but once unionized we could have extra once we were holding more than 3. Made a huge difference. In my other center without a union we had similar conditions and I ended up getting stabbed. We only occasionally had security guards like we were supposed to have and I had to wrestle a number of people to get guns away from them. So I have seen firsthand the positive effects of unions.
However, I have also seen some downsides so I think unions can be good or bad like everything else. But, I really dont get the police unions. I am sure they do some good sometimes but it’s also clear they go way overboard to protect their bad apples. At least among the cops I have known they dont like the bad reputation that rubs off on them from the bad ones.
Steve
@Assad K: You don’t actually have 1oo bad cops, but the net effect is the same for the incident in question (and for other ensuing situations).
@Matt Bernius:
Again the comparisons to Lt. Calley are instructive.
In the My Lai massacre, Lt. Calley and his men were primed by a corrupt and dysfunctional military structure to see the villagers as inhuman objects.
But…They also exercised considerable discretion, decision-making and individual judgement. This was demonstrated by the fact that many of them chose to not participate, and some like the helicopter pilot actively protected the villagers.
Cops are similar, in that yes, the structure doesn’t reward whistleblowers, but that doesn’t prohibit them from actually doing so. What we see in most police departments is a culture created by the officers themselves, that views civilians as an unruly colony to be suppressed by an occupying force; We see it in unionized departments, and nonunionized, in big city departments and small town forces.
Its absolutely true that we need to reform the structures starting with police commissions and chiefs, but in the end, the basic cop culture needs to be reformed.
@Matt Bernius:
Good cops can write honest reports that accurately describe what happened, rather than whitewashing the misbehavior of their fellow officer. They can testify honestly about what they saw, rather than shading the truth to protect their fellow officer. They can make it clear by their attitude and actions that they do not condone the crimes committed by their fellow officers. None of these things are necessarily easy, but if they were the rule rather than the exception change could occur regardless of union contracts.
@Chip Daniels & @Roger:
Given that in the past both my personal and professional interests have led me to interact with a lot of folks in law enforcement (and also other folks who have done the same and bring a lot of perspective), all I can share is that—in my limited experience—a lot of officers do report issues via the chain of command.
Items on a record like “he was told he needed more training, including “high-stress decision-making classes” and “he struggled with report writing, was ‘not great with evidence — left items laying around office’ and was ‘a bragger'” are examples of feedback are not just coming from managers/supervisors. I’d bet that other officers were talking to leadership about this guy.
Look, I’m firmly in the reform camp. I also want to acknowledge the realities of working within a department and the disincentives of reporting. In doing a bit of research, I saw a perfect quote to explain this on a Law Enforcement Reddit Thread about Brady lists (lists of officers a prosecutor knows they can’t call as witnesses because of past issues):
To that point, the partner dynamic is a challenge within police departments. Reporting one’s partner or not backing them can be really challenging. I’m saying that to acknowledge reality—especially when you have been trained to believe that when things go down, the only thing standing between you and the afterlife is said partner.
Again, this isn’t intended as a defense. Rather, it’s a case of trying to build empathy for why—especially beyond reporting issues through the chain of command—most officers are not willing to go too far. And frankly, given the structure of most departments, I think that is the rational response.
@Matt Bernius:
The situation as you describe it seems to suggest there is a lack of power/authority to act effectively on a problem that is recognized within the system. If you agree with this, who needs more authority, and where would that authority need to come from?
@Chip Daniels:
I think that’s correct. The same phenomenon exists elsewhere, healthcare for example.
So what’s the solution?
@Matt Bernius: As a lawyer, I’ve had experience with two institutions where the norm was for members of the profession to cover up for dangerous co-workers: health care and law enforcement. (I’m sure there are other professions where this is also true–the clergy comes to mind–but I only have significant direct experience with docs and cops). I get how hard it is to be seen as the guy or gal who’s not on the team. Hey, I’ve seen Serpico.
So I don’t expect either doctors or police officers to file formal complaints about substandard co-workers, even though in a perfect world I think we’d have built a culture where that’s the norm. What I do expect (an expectation based on hope, not experience) is that they don’t lie in their official records. Reading reports after virtually any police shooting (or beating, or arrest for contempt of cop, or…) shows how unrealistic my expectation currently is. I’m getting tired in my old age of saying that’s ok, because the job’s really tough. What’s the line about the soft bigotry of low expectations?
@Erik:
First, let me humbly suggest that there is a lot of Dunning-Kruger/Green Lanterning happening in this thread. These are really complex issues and I’m just knowledgable enough about these issues to understand the complexity of addressing them.
There are lots of resources by folks within and outside of Law Enforcement. Most, touch on a combination of cultural changes that need to happen within a department (like this list of ideas for the National Institutes for Justice – https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/police-integrity-and-how-improve-it) and/or legislative changes (like this article: https://transformingthesystem.org/criminal-justice-policy-solutions/create-fair-and-effective-policing-practices/promoting-accountability/).
At a minimum, that means reforming laws in 50 states (legislative) or doing culture work in the almost 18,000 separate arresting agencies across the county.
Simply put there is no silver bullet. In part that’s because we have an incredibly fragmented policing system in the US where the majority of power is invested at the municipal level (versus either the State or Federal level). It’s a system that for a host of reasons has evolved in a way that totally resists systemic reform.
That’s not to say reform isn’t possible, it’s just an incredibly long road. It’s one of the reasons that criminal legal system reformers tend to think in terms of decades (if not generations).
@Roger:
I totally get your frustration and I, like you, yearn for a better system.
I’m also enough of a structuralist to pay much attention to the systems as they exist. And to the degree I can, try to center my focus on them (as I tend to think they have an outsized amount of impact on individual behavior). And I personally would never design a policing system like what we have in the US. Unintentionally or intentionally (probably a mix of both), it’s developed into a system that resists change.
And I have heard similar comments from people outside the US who cannot understand how our system operates (or why we continue to allow it to operate in this way).
BTW, are you a defense or personal injury lawyer? Either way, thank you for your work (and being willing to bear the amount of friction that gets directed at you).
At the risk of answering my own question, and I see in comments many rationale for what’s going on, but the answer is integrity.
Instead of just jumping on the bandwagon for “my side” I think we have lost the notion of integrity. Objective standards. It’s just means justify ends.
Not a good place for us to be in.
@Jack: Maybe part of the solution is to comment on topics without trying to score partisan points on ancillary and unrelated topics so that your original comment is not discounted as non-serious?
ETA: But I see you’ve already said this and well. Follow your own advice.
@Jack:
Ok, to start another fight, that’s an absurd platitude.
If the answer was “integrity” we wouldn’t need criminal codes or police because everyone would have too much integrity to commit crimes. The reality is we need enforceable systems of conduct with actual oversight.
To lay out the problem with “integrity” in a way that makes the issue clear: I’m pretty sure, based on your interpretation of facts and political persuasion, you would say that Former President Trump and J. D. Vance are men of integrity.
Based on my interpretation of facts and political persuasion, I would reach the exact opposite conclusion. If it make you feel more comfortable, we could reverse things with President Biden and Vice President Harris and probably reach the same outcome.
Whose right? I’m sure each one of us would argue that we are. And that’s the issue. And to be clear, its nothing new in society (i.e. it isn’t a failing of the modern age). The phrase “who watches the watchmen” goes back to a Roman poet in 2nd century AD. Socrates (via Pluto) also address similar concepts in 3rd century BC and that’s just western thought.
@Roger:
Yes. And you hit on the right point. Perfection, or at least proper organizational function, and the human condition almost never intersect.
So think. Where does that lead one?
IMHO it leads to the notion that government as problem solver, the Holy Grail of almost all OTB commenters, is foolish. Just brain dead. Somehow – magically – government workers and policymakers are going to do the right thing. Vomit.
The differences between you OTB leftist commenters, and people like me and (is it RTK? You guys love to cheaply gang up on him/her) is the faith in government to solve anything.
Why are politicians today, running on the same issues they ran on 50 years ago? Poverty. Hunger. Justice.
Government never solves anything. It’s just a way for politicians to ply greed and envy into voters with the promise of hope. So cynical.
People, if left basically alone, will do just fine. If they get told how to think and behave by government……….they are fuxxxd. .
@Matt Bernius:
I was a sex crimes prosecutor in my misspent youth. I then spent a decade defending medical malpractice cases, and have spent the last quarter century representing plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases. Yes, I’m old.
@Roger:
Ah, got it. Totally didn’t think about malpractice. A long and meandering career is often a good career.
@Matt Bernius:
Well, you are flat damned wrong.
Let’s move past the “integrity” issue, as you conveniently switched from criminal to non-criminal behavior. Cheap, Matt. Very cheap.
Moving on. No, I would not say Trump, or JD Vance are men of integrity. Far from it. Am I to understand that you have such a weak mind that you believe Obama, Biden, Harris, Comey, Clapper, Clinton(s) are people of integrity? If you say yes, I know you are a simpleton.
Politicians are what they are. You have to look at policy, and results. None of them are angels, or anything close.
So to your point. Who watches the watchmen? It was media. Then they went into the tank. They are nothing but propagandists. To argue otherwise is a public embarrassment. But I know the drill; confirmation bias rules. It has not been good for society as a whole.
So have fun. Bathe in your confirmation bias, masquerading as fact or analysis, but I can’t take you seriously if you can’t see or acknowledge both sides.
@steve: “Second, the training period as noted above was 16 weeks. The US average is 21 weeks and in Europe it’s generally over a year and up to 3 years.”
This is the biggest problem. The vetting issues would be greatly decreased with more training because the training itself would ID those who shouldn’t be there (and lots would wash out on their own). 16 weeks training to be a person who can arrest people and enjoy immunity for injuries suffered in all but egregious situations is ridiculous. And I suspect the 16 weeks typically doesn’t address laws around arrest and detention to any great extent, versus the physical and technical aspects.
We need to create a massive culture change away from police protecting their coworkers from consequences when they screw up, to one where police are protecting each other from screwing up so they never have the danger of consequences.
I have no idea how to get there, but part of the problem is the people in policing.
I propose requiring any police department that takes federal funds (I think that’s all of them, give or take, but if not this can be state level) require each officer who interacts with the public to go to therapy every other week. The federal government can cover the costs of the therapists, or even have the therapists.
Whatever value the therapists have for the mental wellbeing of police is kind of secondary. The main benefit is driving the people who would hate it and who can’t bring themselves to bend the knee to “civilian” authority to leave.
If there was a way to just fire everyone who doesn’t consider themself to be a civilian, I would prefer that.
@Jack:
Without delving into fantasy land, can you explain why Biden is not a man of integrity?
And by fantasy land, I’m going to say anything only reported on by Fox, NewsMax, Infowars and the like is fantasyland.
There are lots of reasons to disagree with him — I disagree with him on a lot — but I have never seen him as anything but a man of integrity, aside from plagiarizing a Neil Kinnock speech. .
@Jack: And this has been today’s installment of “Is there anything they say on Fox News that Jack won’t repeat?”
@Jack: “People, if left basically alone, will do just fine. If they get told how to think and behave by government……….they are fuxxxd. .”
And this explains why Somalia is such a paradise? Because they’ve thrown off the shackles of government and now every is basically left alone to do just fine?
Or heck, let’s forget about Somalia, since I’m sure you’re convinced that the darker people there aren’t capable or worthy of self-government.
Can you point to one period in history where there has been a society without a government? And if you can, can you also tell us just how long it existed in this blessed state before the first armed gang came in and took it over?
@Jack:
According to who other than you?
No it wasn’t. If I misunderstood your point about integrity then you could unpack where I’m wrong. Instead, you resort to insults. Yet, it seems like you think we should be respecting your portion as stated.
BTW, what we are talking about in this thread, as far as I can tell, are police officers who are engaging in criminal behavior and then questions about others who are supporting their behavior . Your answer to that issue is “integrity” which again, I am taking as a platitude unless it has some teeth to back it up.
For all your “Government never solves anything” positions, I’m guessing that you think criminal law enforcement is an important role of government. So perhaps, just perhaps there’s more sublty to your positions that you are suggesting.
Or is to point that out a cheap move?
Last point on this, while I called the idea that “integrity is the answer” absurd, I never actually attacker you personally (or if I did, please point it out). For someone who apparently values integrity, your post isn’t showing much of it.
Ok, cool. Thanks for the clarification. That’s helpful to understand your position.
First, nice to see you think I’m a simpleton for expressing a view point. I didn’t realize that holding a contrary position to yours is such a threat that you need to make these insults. It’s got to be really tiring to go through the world so judgment and with such exceptionally thin skin.
For the record, I don’t think everyone on that list (which I note your radically extended… I if I was to adopt your style, I’d suggest that’s a “cheap move”–there seems to be a lot of projection in your posts). I don’t particularly think Clinton (either of them) are people of of great integrity. I respect Obama, Biden, and Harris. And I think all of those folks have acted with integrity in the past.
I think gets to an important point that I realized in the process of writing this: integrity only can be judged via specific actions and in specific moments. Again, looking at your response to my good faith answer, I don’t think your acting in that moment with a lot of integrity. In fact, looking across most of your posts, it’s hard to see you demonstrating much integrity.
Again, you’re free to say the same thing of me, which gets back to the point about integrity being relative and therefore a terrible solution to the problems we’re discussing. If it apparently can’t solve something as basic as an internet discussion, color me skeptical it can fix policing (which as far as I can tell was you “obvious answer” to the problem).
I’m really curious to understand when that happened. And at what level. I’m someone who studied American Journalism history and there is no point where the third estate has ever been a particularly good guardian of things. Otherwise we wouldn’t have a long history of police assisting in lynchings, race based policing, and other abuses–and that’s just policing.
You’re arguing for a past that never existed.
Again, where did I argue this. As you did here you have an ongoing pattern of deciding which of your axes you want to grind and then twist the post (in what I think you would characterize as a cheap move) to fit that topic. Which again, is your perogative… But if I was regularly doing that, I would have the integrity not to immediately insult anyone who points that, and the weaknesses in your argument out.
I would actually argue that for the majority of it’s history, the press was always biased and then due media consolidation and the creation of awards like the Pulitizer folks decided it wasn’t–except that you can go and read conservatives in the day complaining about folks like Cronkite and Murrow and how their coverage of things like Vietnam and racial attacks were totally biased.
But if you can point to a moment in history where the press was unbaised and the real guardian of integrity, share away. I don’t think it’s too much to ask for actual examples. And again, bringing proof to back up assertions is an example of integrity.
And here we go, you start erecting strawmen and deciding that the issue is with us and not you.
Which gets to the bigger question: why do you keep coming here. You clearly have no respect for anyone. It really seems like Red State or other sites are going to be much more your speed. Nothing in your comments suggests you get pleasure from your interactions here.
And if, by chance, this is the latest in a long number of handles, I have to ask are you ok? Again, if this is your first time, ignore what comes next–but if this is Drew/Gurialdi/or any number of the folks James has banned for being jerks*, why do you keep showing up after it’s been made clear you’re not welcome here? I have to think there are better and more mentally/emotionally healthy uses of your time that hate reading and shitting over anyone who dares to have a different opinion. I mean, if you are those guys, you’ve indicated in the past you are retired and have lots of activities you enjoy (or maybe it’s just golk) and a family that loves you… so why choose to be so toxic.
* – for the record, while those people frustrated me, I’ve personally never supported banning anyone. If someone wants to be an asshole in public, that’s up to them. That said, this is a public space, and James can do whatever he wants.
Anyway, unless you demonstrate you can have an actual conversation without insulting people, I’ll only interact with you to point out a case where your facts are totally wrong.
@Jack:
Ok, so I guess you agree with his post in the other forum that the Mai Lai massacre is the same as the current college protests:
If you do that’s a bold move. Or if you don’t then you might begin to understand why he gets some pushback.
Or how about where he blamed men’s issues on women (and used the movie Pretty Woman as proof)?
Again, if you do, then own it. If you do disagree then maybe have a little… what’s the word… integrity and not just attack people for “ganging up.”
@Matt Bernius:
@Jack has not, to my knowledge, directly endorsed much of anything. To his credit, parts of his comments on this thread indicate that he does not simply oppose whatever is said by Joyner or the regulars.
Having said that, these conversations reach an impasse–most often, the same one:
What is the alternative?
I think there is one thing about the Enlightenment that often goes under/unexamined: that thinkers such as Hobbes and Rousseau had to replace particular stories of the state of nature. Their goal was not to replace religion as an institution, rather it was to replace the parts that defined that starting point and nature of humans.
That is not to say that they did not believe what they were writing–I have no idea if they did. But it was seen as a necessary task of political theory. But this is problematic, because the stories they told are not verifiable.
It is not so different now. In the realm of political theory, Nozick expends a good bit of effort justifying state of nature analysis. Religious objections to evolution occupy a similar space; the general consensus borne of the enlightenment–accommodation–be damned.
In my view, Graeber does a great job pointing out that for all of the ink used to analyze the ‘state of nature’ it can hardly be described as rigorous, because it is necessarily incomplete. Worse, the stories used to justify any -ism are selected for the purpose of justification rather than analysis.
I use Nozick as an example, because he is generally hated by a large swathe of Right Libertarians, AnCaps, whatever you want to call them. Why? Because he forces them into a corner with regard to what exactly constitutes a state.
More to the point, some form of universally recognized authority that fits Weber’s formulation is inevitable. For those individuals who refuse to recognize an authority, force must be used to address conflict wherein one side refuses to relent.
Whether it is Jack’s contention that
Or:
the AnCap’s faith that market forces inevitably topple a private conflict resolution firm that behaves in an unjust or tyrannical manner,
it’s more or less an admission that they don’t have an answer for the question of how to manage conflict without a recognized authority.
Both rely on assumptions that are, at best, unverifiable, but most often, have been repeatedly demonstrated to be false.
Instead, they pretend that authority can be eliminated completely, because authority is the source of conflict.
They end up either begging the question or defining the state/authority differently as needed.
@Matt Bernius: thanks for taking the time to point me to some useful links. I certainly haven’t done the work to have an opinion on this important topic, and it is high time that I started changing that
Some depts and municipalities are going to have to learn the hard way just how much damage one bad cop can do.
@Kurtz: Good post. I am not up to speed on philosophy, political or otherwise, so I won’t speak to that. But Jack’s contention that government has made no progress on the “same old” problems (hunger, justice, etc.) are so ludicrous that’s it’s hard to know where to start. Actually we tend to make enormous progress when Republicans don’t undo it with their claims of welfare queens and other bullshit. And while racism clearly still exists, I don’t seem to see that many “Whites Only” signs these days. Justice has been brought to new frontiers (gay marriage, etc.). There are half as many murders as there were 30-40 years ago (and a hell of a lot more people now). These are almost all government actions; no corporate big wig smoking a cigar up in his penthouse improved those issues.
That said, everything is relative. It’s easy to complain about eggs costing twice as much as they did a year ago or whatever, but send a time traveler from the Great Depression to any supermarket today and they would be flabbergasted by the variety and quality available. Things are better than they used to be, the long arc of the universe is towards justice, etc. etc.