I expect there to be some disagreement over this question, and perhaps that is a good thing, as it will give those in disagreement with this question the opportunity to persuade me why this assertion is false, just as I intend to reinforce my question with a post filled with real life events and references to back my own statement.
First of all, let's get down to the main point of my question and put it down into context: What do I mean by a "lower" standard?
Here are some of the main arguments I plan to make in bullet form, which will then be later translated into a summary of their own:
1) Cops are given more legal rights than civilians
2) Cops are allowed to do to civilians what would be seen as a crime if it were conducted by anybody else, even in the rare case a judge sides AGAINST the cop in question
3) Cops as an institution, and not just on an individual basis, are rotten; therefore rendering the argument of a "few bad apples" completely moot
So, let's get down to the first point that I made.
Cops have been known to commit egregious assaults against civilians, whether it be the elderly, disabled or even juvenile children, and they often do it WHILE on camera, which makes it easier for the observer to see for themselves what did or did not happen.
However, with very rare exceptions, if a judge or police department declares the cop to be at fault, then the cop is always granted the right to resign quietly and are then usually hired at a neighbouring department, instead.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb1E6Uu79ko
On the other hand, if a civilian were to assault another civilian, then the civilian would be in jail and charged.
A civilian has no rights to just "resign" and quietly slide away from the situation.
And even more telling, is that most jurisdictions actually consider hitting a cop to be an aggravated assault in its own right, which means that a simple punch in the face against a cop is far more likely to be declared a felony and result in much longer prison time, and a more damaging background record than if the same punch had been against a regular civilian.
As one can see, cops are able to get away with assaults -- including cases where people have died -- and the worst that might happen to them is that they get fired and are then usually rehired at a new department where their infamy may not be as noticeable.
The same situation applies to drug offending cops as well.
Cops have been caught on CAMERA planting drugs in cars of civilians just so that they can have the civilian arrested on drug charges.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UANRvFNc0hw
Three things to keep in mind that the cops in question are doing here:
1) They are themselves in possession of drugs
2) They are committing perjury against another individual
3) They themselves almost certainly consume some of those drugs themselves during their free time
Out of all the hundreds of reported cases of this happening, only a few of them have ever been caught, and only because the cops in these situations were actually dumb enough to turn on their own body camera videos and film themselves planting the drugs in a vehicle; and even then, these cops are mostly found out because a whistle blower from the inside ends up ratting them out, and it is usually the whistle blower who gets bullied out of the workforce.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcWXVDiEjzU
I also find it quite astounding how cops think they can draw their guns on everybody they come across as though they are running around in some sort of combat zone, yet if somebody even acts "suspicious" in the eyes of a cop, the cop can legally spray a person dozens of times on camera and a prosecutor -- who is themselves paid by the state -- is 99% guaranteed to dismiss all charges outright.
I will not bother naming the more obvious cases of police shootings, since they are old news, but I will talk about some of the other more one-sided police shooting videos that did NOT receive media attention, and you, the reader, can tell me for yourselves whether or not the police were justified in this case, and what would have happened had the situation been reversed.
Back in 2013, a man by the name of Ricardo Zeferino was out looking for his brother's stolen bike with two friends. Zeferino had called the police and asked if they could help him find the bicycle. Not surprisingly, the cops were unable to find it, yet Zeferino allegedly found it abandoned on a street corner, and he and his two friends were returning home with it when several cops jumped out of their vehicles with their handguns drawn out and flashlights pointed in their faces.https://www.dailybreeze.com/2017/02/13/appeals-court-dismisses-gardenas-lawsuit-over-release-of-police-shooting-video/
The "interrogation" lasted for mere seconds when Zeferino, who was wearing a white baseball cap, decided to take it off.
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Zeferino is fatally shot eight times by multiple cops. One of those bullets even went through his body and it ended up shooting one of his friends who was standing behind him.
For two years, the video was hidden from the public, and when a judge finally ordered that the video be made public, the police department threatened to sue the state.
Despite how blatantly at fault the cops were, prosecutors once again declared the murder "justifiable" and declined to press charges.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8rAX3up5Z8
In other cases, men such as Kelly Thomas and Robert Leone were beaten so badly by police on video that Kelly Thomas died (in a coma) while Robert Leone was left with long-term injuries and was even IMPRISONED for four years by the police who falsified their claims, even though the entire beating was caught on their dash cameras.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDpJ5FtG6Achttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5eOknaXgYU
Either juries are so incompetent when it comes to cop trials that they will take a cop's word over a dash cam video at face value, or they are paid to acquit all cops who go to trial for murder or aggravated assault.
There is no way around it.
Many who have read up until this point may think that my "generalisation" against cops is unfair, but I promise you all that I have only just begun scratching the surface, and that I am destined to end up omitting many more noteworthy cases that cannot be added for lack of time.
Believe me when I say this: I am a very fair person.
Even in the rare case when cops go to "prison" for a murder or assault, I can sympathise with them on a human level, something which I know to be lacking in most if not all cops, who are notorious for having selective personality disorder as well as sociopathic tendencies.https://www.mic.com/articles/44423/10-professions-that-attract-the-most-sociopaths
However, I also know for a fact that cops will boast that everyone must be held "accountable" for their actions. And if their interpretation of accountability is to imprison somebody or even execute them in certain cases (things which I tend not to be a fan of, especially in the latter example) than I would be a hypocrite to grant immunity to the very group of people who enforce the laws that get others imprisoned.
A cop cannot excuse their violent physical assaults against family members, civilians or colleagues and excuse their behaviour as "working a difficult" job.
If a civilian cannot get out of being charged and arrested by a cop for hitting somebody under duress, then a cop definitely has no right to do the same; even though, of course, that is what happens in the real world.https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/
Steve Wilkos is arguably the most well known cop in the world, and if anybody knows who he is, Steve Wilkos is one of those bald-headed cops who likes to preach about how one should be ethical and not act like a "moron" and that includes the drunk drivers that have been on his show.
A few years ago, Steve Wilkos was himself arrested because he caused a dangerous accident resulting in property damage and a vehicle being flipped. He then proceeded to run away on foot, and though he was arrested and charged for the DUI, Steve Wilkos himself -- who, like other cops, say you should always plead guilty and "accept" your sentence -- begged the judge to let him off and used his former service as a police officer as his main plea.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGNo5I9W0Vk
It should also be pointed out that in the very rare case where a civilian wins a lawsuit for a violation inflicted on them by a police officer, the cop in question is unlikely to pay for the damages personally, as they are regarded as a "ward of the state" which means that all settlements will come from taxes, with their ego being the only thing left on the line for them.
While I myself tend to also be against suing for personal assets, I cannot overlook the simple fact that a civilian who commits a life threatening act against a civilian or a cop would not only be forced to pay for damages out of their own pocket, but would then be looking at a prison sentence which could stretch up to life imprisonment.
Even in the event that the civilian in question is released, they are probably going to have a criminal record that will make them ineligible for any meaningful employment outside of entrepreneurship, as the police will hound that individual for the rest of their lives with a piece of paper stating that so and so is not worthy to be employed at a job for any number of reasons.https://johnhoward.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/facts-24-crime-and-unemployment-whats-the-link-march-2009.pdf
That last sentence brings me down to the third point, where the argument can be made that even if every cop in the world was a saintly human being that was pure of heart for all, it still would not change the fact that policing in itself is rotten, and not just the individuals who represent it.
Anytime I hear a cop claiming that they want to "protect and serve" I remind myself that the person is either a liar trying to make their job seem more noble and praiseworthy than it really is, or they are some deluded rookie who probably grew up watching too many cartoons and have yet to adapt to the real world.
First of all, how is it that a cop can actually be "serving" us when a cop is the one that can even keep you locked in prison for many years for the "crime" of resisting arrest?
If I don't approve of being arrested, and you arrest me anyway, then you are not my servant; just like an employer wouldn't be the one getting fired because his employee did not approve of his boss's work ethic.
The even bigger joke, of course, is when cops say that they are there to protect as well, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has stated multiple times that police are not legally obligated to protect anybody and that their only purpose is to enforce the law.
The 2005 ruling from the Supreme Court is also why when someone survives being stabbed half to death by an assailant on a train while the police lock themselves up in another room and wait for the killer to surrender themselves or flee, neither the police nor the state can be sued, since the state has immunity when it comes to acts of negligence that would have a civilian charged under the "Good Samaritan" law.https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Police by nature are there to find any breakage of the law and do everything they can to help prosecutors convict the person and ruin their lives, whether it be for murder or something as trivial as trespassing on private property.
Cops by law will never benefit the average person, and there is a reason why lawyers encourage anyone being detained or arrested not to speak to the police, as the police are not there for your benefit, but for the benefit of the state.
Now, let me put this little scenario in your head, and you can tell me if what the police do here is "protecting and serving" the individual and the community in any way, shape or form:
Let's say you are somebody who is poor and wants to get out of living on the streets. As a result, you sneak by some cashiers and snatch a few bills here and there.
One day, you are caught and arrested. While being charged, the police put your name on a background record. You are then sent to a judge, who gives you one year in jail.
During that one year you spend in jail, you likely witness and experience many traumatic things that would be regarded as unfathomable in the outside.
When you do get out, you not only suffer from some sort of depression and possibly even PTSD as a result of your experience, but you also now have some record that will make finding a steady income all the much harder when compared to BEFORE you were arrested for reasons related to your unemployment.
And if you have children to look after... Well, statistics say that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to get themselves caught up in the same generational trap that their parents now find themselves in.
To make matters even more dire, is that often enough, the people who are now left in such a state begin to take their revenge out on society as a whole.
What started off as simply a person trying to find the means to get by could now easily evolve into somebody attempting to rob, beat up, vandalise or even kill others, as their minds are likely to feel the justification for the bad hand they feel they have been dealt with.
Billions of dollars is now wasted because of police conduct, and many families are forever destroyed, even in cases when none of our frivolous laws were even broken to begin with, as people are often times given records without ever going to trial. And aside from the harm that mass incarceration does to not only those who go there, but to their families and communities, is not something that benefits anybody except for the police who make their careers destroying the lives of others, usually those who are too poor or disadvantaged to defend themselves in a court rigged in favour of the state.
We need to stop treating police officers as though they are public servants of our communities and acknowledge that there is only one word which can describe a force that is set out to try and strip the rights of as many people as power while empowering themselves at the expense of not only the economy but our own liberties:
Prosecutors and judges are also equally as guilty of this cycle as cops, and politicians and legislators should definitely not count themselves out, as it is the very legal system they have created that has resulted in people doing things they likely would never have committed in the first place.
Quite interestingly, is that contrary to popular belief, one does not need to be indicted, charged, nor convicted of anything in order to receive a criminal record.https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/05/17/i_had_no_idea.html
Getting a criminal record can be as easy as a cop claiming so and so committed an act, even if there were no grounds to it, other than the cop's word. Millions of people who have never been formally arrested by the cops or charged have a criminal record that will ruin their chances at employment and housing, though most who have such a record are oblivious that it exists until the day they apply to a job and find out that an over-zealous cop or one with a chip on his or her shoulders made an accusation against you and now it follows you around for life like a real life cancer seeking to destroy you.https://medienportal.univie.ac.at/presse/aktuelle-pressemeldungen/detailansicht/artikel/not-convicted-but-presumed-guilty/https://canadian-nurse.com/en/articles/issues/2014/june-2014/whats-in-your-police-record
No other profession in the world has a criminal record system like the police do.
It is not as though a chef, doctor or teacher is going to be able to create their own personal record against me that an employer is likely to see the way the police can, and even if someone from another profession were to write such a report against me, I would have much better grounds to counter their claims with slander.
In contrast, who gets to investigate the police?
Most jurisdictions do not have a way to file a complaint against the police, as police by nature regard themselves as being above the law, meaning that there can't be a legal complaint made against them.
The few jurisdictions that do allow complaints against police are likely to result in a gang of police emerging from their desks and assaulting the person trying to make the complaint. One undercover news reporter who tried to make a complaint was instantly chased out by a belligerent cop who proceeded to tackle and arrest him. The reporter was only released when a news crew who had watched the interaction from their vehicle went and confronted the cop who made that arrest and forced him to release their crew member.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnJ5f1JMKns
It is not hard to understand why cops have this high attitude of themselves.
For one, police officers are actually very wealthy, and the claim that they work for "pennies" is mere propaganda intended to gain sympathy and support for them.
Let's look at Canada, for instance, which happens to be the country I live in, and you can tell ME if the wages the police receive are considered to be "poverty" wages:
The average Canadian receives a salary of $51,000. However, it should also be noted that Canadian averages do not include retirees, the unemployed, minors or full-time students.https://careers.workopolis.com/advice/how-much-money-are-we-earning-the-average-canadian-wages-right-now/
Meanwhile, the average salary for a ROOKIE constable, is over $53,000 on their first year, or more than what most Canadians will earn in a year during their entire career.
Within three years, their average salary rises to a whopping $86,000 a year.http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/salary-and-benefits
A Provincial or RCMP cop, however, earns even more, with as many as one in three federal police in Canada earning in excess of $100,000 a year, or twice the amount of an average Canadian.
As many as one in ten RCMP cops earn over $120,000.
Aside from their salaries, cops receive full dental and medical insurance, and some jurisdictions even grant them mortgage payments to help the "rookies" afford a house right off the bat, even in an economy that sees the average Canadian unable to afford even a townhouse in a rural setting.
In addition, cops in Canada receive full pensions by the time they are 57, whereas an ordinary Canadian must now wait until they are 70 to receive their pensions, which are likely to be much smaller, as most Canadians cannot command a salary even half as high as the average cop, and they are most certainly not receiving mortgage benefits that makes it possible for a rookie cop to buy a full-sized house without even needing to save up or pay interest.
So next time you hear a cop telling you that they are not getting paid enough, just tell them that it is probably still three times more that YOU, the civilian who is paying for their salaries through taxes, are earning.
In the United States, over a million people are currently on a sex offender registry, and the only reason the number is not higher is for several reasons:
1) Many of those who were previously listed on it have died, either through natural causes, homicide or suicide
2) Some have never been caught
3) Others have yet to be convicted
4) Many have yet to be released from prison
Before I jump into the sex offender registry, let me clarify this by saying that I think that the sex offender registry, as well as the social ramifications that come with it -- including the reality that many on the registry die because they are prohibited from setting foot in a hospital or because they cannot be in a homeless shelter during the winter -- is inexcusable, even if the registrant in question was some stereotypical night stalker preying on the vulnerable at every possible opportunity.https://www.michiganradio.org/post/federal-judge-allows-registered-sex-offenders-michigan-homeless-shelters
However, the reality is quite different, as the average person who gets registered was fourteen at the time, and they are often times registered for offences that would be seen as perfectly legal for an adult, who is presumably more "aware" of themselves than a juvenile.
Thousands of people get added to registries for taking pictures of themselves as minors or for having sexual intercourse with themselves with a minor who was approximately their age. Often times, a sixteen or seventeen year old person lies about their age and the eighteen or nineteen year old becomes registered, even if they thought their partner was their age. Some cases even involve the parents of juveniles being added because the parents would allow another minor who was in a relationship with their teenage daughter who became impregnated by them move in their house, and they would themselves be regarded as a "party to child molestation" and have their own livelihood destroyed as a result.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Georgia_v._Allison
Just like the prison system, the sex offender registry system is big business for police and politicians alike, and I can assure those reading what I have written that there are not many people actually convicted of forceful rape who are currently on the registry, as the stiffening in American sentencing laws since the 1970s has made it so that rape either carries a mandatory life sentence without parole in many jurisdictions (Louisiana being one of the most well known examples), or a minimum sentence that would take several decades to complete (Arizona, New York, Georgia, South Dakota etc.).
Even in states where life sentences are discretionary, someone is likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment for trivial reasons as simple as "inappropriate" interaction with a minor, even if no penetration was involved or intended.
For instance, Michelle Taylor was convicted of forcing a thirteen year old to touch her breasts while she was drunk at a party. Under Nevada law, even this act alone carried a mandatory life sentence, which she was sentenced to in 2010 when the judge in her trial told her there was no legal discretion permitted in this case.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-xEdbEubjs
Anybody who is actually free from prison and was convicted of rape either committed the rape decades ago when sentencing laws for violent felonies such as rape and murder were far more relaxed than they are now, or they were given a reduced charge as part of a plea bargain because the prosecutor was uncertain if they could prove a case of rape.
While I tend to be progressive in this area and think that rape cases should rarely, if ever, warrant a life sentence, the point here is that the police will treat everyone on the registry as either a potential rapist, or a rapist who has already been convicted and released from prison.
Police officers in Florida have even gone so far as to put red stop signs in the front yard property of everyone who is fortunate enough to find a residence while living on the registry, as a way to bring attention to everyone else that a "rapist" lives in that house and for everyone to beware.https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=wWg5XeHVO8bN_Aa24rbwCw&q=red+stop+sign+florida+sex+offence&oq=red+stop+sign+florida+sex+offence&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i21l2j33i160.590.5666..5765...0.0..1.559.6526.1j11j7j1j5j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....0..35i39j0j0i131j0i67j0i131i67j0i10j33i22i29i30j0i8i13i30.SLaNCQjNDxE&ved=0ahUKEwihuuf108_jAhXGJt8KHTaxDb4Q4dUDCAc&uact=5
Such fear mongering, unsurprisingly, means that politicians can get the public to pass even more ludicrous laws, giving the police themselves more power to curb on the liberties of all civilians, even if one has gone their whole lives without a direct encounter with the police.
When it comes to murder cases, the police have definitely proven to be no better, and it is minorities or those with mental disabilities who have been the most vehemently targeted demographic of the police forces.
While people may think of Black people or Hispanics being made targets, one should remember that those suffering from autism or some other mental disorder are treated just as harshly if not more so than the more represented minority groups.
Back in the 1930s, a young man named Joe Arridy was executed at the age of twenty-three on the accusations of premeditating the rape of a woman resulting in her death. Joe was autistic and so oblivious to his situation that he was known to have played with his trains on death row, giving him the nickname "The Happiest Man on Death Row" and even when he was about to be gassed alive in a gas chamber, the warden was unable to explain to Joe that he needed to finish his ice cream now, because he was not going to be able to eat his final meal after he had been executed.
Of course, Joe was posthumously "exonerated" several decades after the fact, but it still does not change the fact that both the police and prosecutors alike targeted Arridy simply because he was a young man with a severe disability, and they knew it would be very easy to bully him into a "confession."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arridy
In an even more recent case, a person named Johnny Frank Garrett was executed at twenty-eight for reasons so stupid that if it were made into a horror movie (which it later was, quite ironically) people would find the entire case laughable to say the least.
At the time of the "murder" Garrett was a seventeen year old known to suffer from what is perceived to have been some form of retardation. Garrett lived in a small city called Amarillo, Texas, and on October 31, 1981, a seventy-six year old woman named Sister Benz was found to have been raped, robbed and murdered in the bedroom of the nunnery.
Garrett himself happened to live across the street from the nunnery, and those at the nunnery knew him quite well and said he used to enjoy visiting the place. Having been beaten, burned and raped in his early life, Garrett was said to have resorted to alcoholism at an early age, which became further "evidence" used against him at his murder capital trial.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Frank_Garrett
The police were so desperate to find someone to murder, that they hired a self-proclaimed psychic to tell them who the killer is (and I only wish I were making this up). This psychic, who called herself "Bubbles" told the police that Garrett was the killer, because she saw him murder the nun in a DREAM!
Without warning, dozens of cops went to Garrett's home with a news crew. Garrett had been reportedly watching football in the living room with his family at the time when the knock came at the door. Garrett was dragged out by several police officers who spent an hour "interrogating" him and forcing him to make a confession that he never signed, despite the evidence that the police had been attempting to physically intimidate him into doing so.
Quite interestingly, aside from the false confession and the "psychic" who claimed she saw Garrett commit the murder in a dream, the only other evidence they ever found against him were a few fingerprints in the building where the murder happened; fingerprints which could easily have been explained by the fact that Garrett was known to have visited the place quite often and had even helped some of the nuns move in the place just one week before the murder took place.
Despite the fact that this was literally a modern Salem Witch Trial taking place in 1980s Texas, with no evidence other than some trivial fantasy claims, the jury unanimously found Garrett guilty, and the judge immediately ordered that Garrett be sentenced to death.
It should be pointed out that during this time, even the nuns and the priest who lived at the place where the murder took place did not believe Garrett was guilty, and that even if he had been, they would have opposed his execution on ethical and religious grounds. Even Pope John Paul II tried to intervene on Garrett's behalf, but Ann Richards refused to intervene, and the seventeen members of the Texas Pardon board all ordered that Garrett be executed on February 11, 1992.
At the time of his sentencing, the city of Amarillo cheered the verdict and legal outcome, and Garrett was reportedly spat and kicked by civilians and police officers alike. Witnesses to the trial even report that prosecutor Danny Hill as well as the Sheriff of Amarillo at the time made mocking imitations that Garrett was going to be fried (he was executed by lethal injection).
Fast forward twelve years later, and DNA surfaces which shows that the real killer was in fact a Cuban immigrant by the name of Leonidus Rueda, who had been deported by Castro for a previous murder committed in his home country. Aside from the murder of the nun, Rueda had also murdered another woman four months prior and was later convicted of attacking several more women, including his ex girlfriend.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYymK3_l-jU
Despite the travesty of this case, none of the police, judges, prosecutors or politicians were ever held to account, and a Texas law actually ORDERED that all evidence posthumously exonerating Garrett be destroyed as a way to make it impossible for the state to be sued by the family members of the deceased.
Similar laws also exist in Virginia, Georgia and Florida, where police are routinely encouraged to destroy any evidence intended to exonerate those false imprisoned or executed as both a way to prevent the state from being sued, but also in order to give the appearance to the public that innocent people are never convicted. Note: I should also remind readers that if a civilian were to do the same thing in order to protect their own image, the civilian would be imprisoned for tampering with evidence after the fact. They might even get an accessory charge added to their record as well.
Now, even if someone were actually "guilty" of what they were accused with, does not justify what happens to somebody after the fact.
There was a time when some jurisdictions permitted death for hanging (even though such cases were far more rare than is commonly believed) and even if we could prove with 100% certainty that nobody convicted of theft would ever be executed does not mean that we should justify the death penalty for those who are convicted of theft.
The state is also not capable of delivering justice, as the state is there to protect itself, and just as government-run schools and hospitals tend to be inferior when operated by the state, so does the perceived sense of "justice" which tends to be more about power and retribution than it is about harmony.
A society bent on destroying others for breaking the law will fold on itself sooner or later, as all previous generations have shown.
The people who make up the police forces are themselves an issue, as background tests eliminate candidates perceived as being intelligent or educated because those who are intelligent and educated are less likely to become physically aggressive and are also more less likely to blindly follow orders perceived as unethical or unjust.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/too-smart-to-be-a-cop/
Robert Jordan was a candidate once known for taking a Wonderlic Test to try and become a cop. It turned out that his score was approximately 129, which placed him as beyond average, though definitely not a genius.
Jordan was rejected on the grounds that he was too intelligent for the job, as the ideal police candidate has an IQ of 100, which is what the median population has, give or take a couple of points.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqvijdxnHxI
One wonders how much safer we would be if police officers were themselves smarter and more educated than the ones currently serving in the ranks, and if this is yet another example of why it is time that we consider replacing the police forces as an outdated concept, just as the police of the Victorian era replaced the military as an outdated policing concept.
I must also say that I find it particularly interesting that a lot of police officers self-proclaim themselves to be many tinfoil hats in one ranging from mechanic, social worker, nurse and even DOCTOR of all things.
They'll claim that their ability to repair a broken vehicle makes them a mechanic; that their ability to apply first aid makes them a nurse; that their "socialisation" with suspects and witnesses makes them social workers, and that their "saving lives" makes them a doctor (Dana Scully, anyone?)
Of course, these claims are all nonsense, and you are unlikely to find cops who are doctors in the real world, as police departments tend to pick candidates who are smart enough to drive a car, file a police report and know how to beat/kill the occasional suspect during an arrest, but not necessarily smart enough to become skeptical of the law, which educated people are historically known for being.
While I understand that this last part may seem to be drifting away from the original argument, I assure readers that what I say here makes perfect sense, as people who are less intelligent and less educated are more likely to see everything in black and white.
That is why the typical police officer will undoubtedly see themselves and the state they represent as agents of good, alongside their supporters, while everyone else is an enemy to be persecuted and possibly even exterminated at all costs, much as if one were fighting in a war, which may explain why it is that police have become so trigger happy that they now even kill people with a Wii remote because they thought it was a shotgun.
Cops are most certainly NOT nurses, as cops are not known to actually apply aid to the injured that they shoot, even when such shootings were clearly the fault of the police. Someone who has been shot dozens of times is more likely to have cops yelling at a corpse to put their hands up before one of them sits their leg upon the back of the victim and handcuffs them, leaving them to a most undignified fate. Sometimes a cop may apply basic aid to a fellow cop who has been injured, but that is hardly the qualifications needed to be a respectable nurse, both in skill and ethics.
Cops are most certainly NOT social workers, as knowing how to manipulate and intimidate people into making confessions -- even those that may never have happened -- is not what self-respecting social workers do. And on top of that, if you go to jail or prison where other police officers and prison guards are likely to be present, the most that a cop is going to do is ransack your cell, inspect your movements during the daytime, or possibly place you in the "hole" for a period of time, even if you were the one being attacked in the first place. Could anybody please explain to me what social work has to do with being a cop or prison guard?
Cops are most certainly NOT mechanics, as mechanics do far more than just pumping air into a flat tire or plugging a wire to get a car battery started again. Making such false claims as being a "mechanic" because a cop knows how to change a tire is an insult to real mechanics out there.
I can hardly believe I have to explain this, but cops are NOT doctors. The Wonderlic Test itself (which is so easy, by the way, that I can hardly imagine how it is possible someone can possibly get a 100 on it) places doctors way above the IQ range that would be regarded as appropriate for a police candidate. Even prison guards are likely to be too smart to be a cop, as Robert Jordan, who was rejected from the police for being too smart was actually hired to work at a prison, since those with higher intelligence are considered more suitable for prison, as opposed to street work.Take the Wonderlic Test, folks; it really is an easy test, which makes me wonder what kind of people are actually doing so poorly that they are capable of getting a 21/50 (the ideal score for a cop).
Taking some photographs at a crime scene and sending them to a forensic scientist who is themselves not a police officer does not make the cop who took the sample some sort of medical expert, regardless of what cops on the internet like to boast.
My rant here regarding intelligence has nothing to do with me believing that someone's worth is based on intelligence, though it is relevant when speaking in the context of what types of people are likely to get hired to work in the police forces.
If policing is merely about arresting and convicting as many people as possible for the benefit of the state, then I suppose it makes sense to hire less intelligent people, as such people are exactly the type of candidates known for being physically aggressive on a regular basis and who are known to do very mundane tasks without boredom.
On the other hand, if we want to end the hypocrisy of police double-standards and also abolish the police, then perhaps we need to look at the possibility that its future equivalent should instead be filled with people who are both intelligent and educated.
As previously stated, I do find it quite interesting that so many tinfoil cops refer to themselves as social workers and nurses while doing everything an ideal social worker or nurse would not do, as I actually find that such people would do a much better job protecting and serving our communities than the brutes who make up our forces today.
Unlike the police, who are also known to make every interaction a matter of public record, healthcare workers are typically bound to HIPAA, which means that interactions they have with their patients are going to be kept confidential from the public.
The attitude of social workers and nurses are likely to be much different, as they tend to be more focused on developing a positive outcome with those deemed as "ill" whereas the police have the perception of instilling their own sense of fear and justice, and as such, tend to have a very opposite approach when compared to a professional healthcare worker.
Abolishing the criminal code as well means abolishing prosecutors and sentencing judges.
Breaking a law -- which is merely a document and not a living organism -- can no longer be sufficient reason to arrest and possibly even imprison someone.
One has to prove themselves a danger to themselves or others within the eye of a well-reasoned healthcare worker to justify any sort of detainment, and even then, the idea of charging and imprisoning somebody should be made a relic of the past and not the future.
Since all "crimes" involving murder or other types of felonies are a form of stress response and thus a medical issue, it is best that the state distance itself from the field of criminology and instead permit the medical field to have more influence, as medical professionals are going to be far better trained to deal with abnormalities such as those who become serial killers or terrorists versus a twenty-one year old cop who likely has not even memorised the Miranda Rights off the top of their head.
Having a specialised medical community bound by HIPAA is also advantageous, as it means that those who find themselves in a system similar to a prison but run by medical specialists will be less likely to become recidivists, and they are also less likely to be rendered unemployable because some record continues following them to every job interview, even into old age.
Those sent to do what may be the equivalent of a cop today would be effectively social workers and nurses who are physically fit enough to go out on the streets while being specialised at dealing with situations when they first happen, as opposed to regular social workers and nurses who are better at dealing with events already in the past.
Such social workers and nurses would be limited in what they can do, outside of making reports or possible detainment in the event of endangerment:
They cannot issue fines
They cannot carry a firearm
They are also prohibited from using a taser or engaging in any physical force, except as a last resort
Cops would tell themselves that guns are necessary, but I call bluff on such claims, as cops in New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom do not typically carry firearms, and yet I bet those countries are much safer to be living in compared to the United States.
Often times, the only reason a cop gets shot is because they are about to make an arrest on someone convicted of theft or drug possession, which could mean that the individual would spend the rest of their lives in prison and have a tarnished record even if they do get out at a later date.
Such events are far less likely to happen in a system that deals with correcting certain actions as opposed to lighting the torch on an individual.
And that is why before we can force the state away from the field of criminology, one must force the police as a whole away from the presence of our society.
In conclusion, I would like to add that while some cops do get convicted in very rare cases, they tend to happen either because the victim was themselves a cop or a relative of a cop, or because politicians decided on their own that at least one cop needed to be a "fall out" person in order to save the reputation of their police forces.
For instance, Timothy Runnels was given a four year prison sentence because he tasered a teenager named Bryce Masters for a good twenty seconds and then intentionally dropped the teen on his face on asphalt concrete, breaking out his teeth and rendering him into a coma. The only reason he was ever charged was because it turned out that Bryce's father was himself a cop in the same department that Runnels worked at, otherwise the video -- which took a year to be shown in court -- would likely never have seen the light of day. Despite the four year sentence, Runnels was sent to a "prison camp" at a federal penitentiary with other imprisoned cops and politicians; a privilege given only to those not regarded as being part of the civilian population.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VYPNfpfqXc
Not too long ago, an eighteen year old autistic teenager was shot twice by an off-duty cop who randomly pulled over and called out to the teenager. As soon as the teenager turned over in his direction, the cop opened fire, causing critical injuries to the teen.
To further aggravate matters, Khalil Muhammad -- the cop who pulled the trigger -- claimed that the teenager was ATTACKING him, despite a porch video showing otherwise. When a civilian personnel who happened to be working at the station saw the video, he refused to claim that the cop was the victim, as requested by both the cop and his commissioner, who had wanted the teen tried for aggravated assault in order to cover up the incident in favour of the department. When the civilian personnel refused to do so, he was fired, and the courts upheld the decision, saying that the department has the right to terminate those who do not follow orders.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g4VIrwTR4khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOeWGX-l6nE
Perhaps when the day comes when we stop criminalising civilians and holding them up to standards which politicians and the police themselves are unable to live up to, is the day I will stop judging and condemning the likes of Timothy Runnels, Brian Encinia, Roy Oliver, Michael Slager, and all the other hundreds of cops out there who caused the unlawful death of a civilian but were never caught or acquitted by a bribed jury.
I am sure that these cops mentioned above are surely in want to escape from the very system they once enforced, and while I think they deserve to be where they are -- not because I agree with it on an ethical basis, but because it would be a double-standard not to support it -- I am progressive and merciful enough to move away from the toxic "justice" system that our cops and politicians have created and to move towards a system that will grant all citizens the rights, liberties and justice that the police never granted to anyone but themselves.