First, go read "Policing Our Own", http://www.mrsdutoit.com/ee/index.php?/C47/.
When I was in college I worked at the security office, "Campus Safety" it was called. It really involved nothing more than locking doors at night. However, we did have cameras installed just about everywhere. At the end of the semester, there was a "Minority Dance" at the gym. At this dance, local hoodlums augmented the college ones and one door was broken, two tables, at least one window, and a whole bunch of fights broke out. The alcohol freely and rather openly flowed. The Campus Safety line was ringing off the hook and we spent the whole night in nervousness (‘hmm, fifty of them, two of us.. Hmm’) at the gym.
The head of our shift is a former cop, I’m given to understand, and so is the head of the security office. The priority of the school is to look good, as is the priority of most people, places and things. Part of looking good is saying how safe and clean and secure your neighborhood, city, campus... etc, etc... is.
At the end of that nervous, vandal-ridden night, not a thing was written up. The ex-cop said he was not going to write anything, because his chain of command didn’t want to hear about bad things like fighting, gun-waving, alcoholism, vandalism, you name it. The ex-cops gave the university the "safe" atmosphere it wanted, not by making things safe, but by lying about how safe the place was.
That door? How did that get broken? We don’t know. And those large, folding, broken tables? Don’t know either. Window? Dunno.
Nothing bad happened, we’re nice and safe. (cough, cough)
I was talking with a hung over guy where I work, who is studying to become a cop. I got on his good side, and he spoke something about things only being wrong if you get caught doing them. Like beating people up - it’s fine as long as you can get away with it. That’s why he wanted to be a police officer, to legally beat up random people. He was a big boy, too.
Even more years ago, in high school, I used to walk to school and got kind of wet one rainy day. I put my wet hat and gloves on a heater by my locker, whereupon some bully and some of his bully entourage took them and made fun of me. I remember that goatee, and how it stretched across his fat chin when he smirked. His theft was secure, as he was with friends, a senior, and big. I, short, skinny, glasses, alone. Years after that unhappy incident, but years before now, I ran across him at a local community college. He was accepted by the local police department, finished with most of his training and degree, and taking to the streets.
Back to the present, where I work, there are two or three, at least, coprophiliacs. One of them is in the program at a school to become a LEO. This copro not only enjoys smearing it on himself, but on everything else as well, and reportedly smears it on things just so he can enjoy the thought of the cleaning lady in misery on her knees scrubbing it up. What a great, honest, gentlemanly, reasonable, "Officer Friendly".
There are those who say that if we have a negative reaction to a "blue shirt and badge", that there is something wrong with us. I say that my negative reaction is not to that badge, it is to the corruptible nature of man and to the corrupting nature of power. As well as that, the negative reaction is the nature of one who is attracted to a position of power over others.
I do not hate badges. I hate the fact that too many let that authority get to their heads. I hate that sinful mankind wills itself to become petty tyrants if allowed. Theodore Dalrymple correctly writes that men will commit the evil they are capable of. If men are allowed to lie, to murder women holding their infant children, they will do so.
Part B of my disagreement with Mrs. du Toit is when she writes that if approached by a policeman, we should prove that we are good and honorable people. This I most heartily disagree with. It is not the duty of a citizen, gun-owner or not, to prove his honor or innocence to the agents of the state. It is the duty of that LEO to assume my innocence until proven guilty. Our system of liberty is based on the state's assumption of a citizen's innocence, leaving the state with the onus of proving guilt. If the state assumes guilt, and we must prove our innocence to it's agents, then we are no longer in liberty.
The most controversial of my opinions here, and, please respond to them, is that the policemen involved with FishOrMan were abject cowards, as are most cops. Recently, a cop was running around on a rooftop in NYC, spotted a guy and shot him for no reason. The LEO had his gun unholstered and reacted to the potential threat. In other words, rather than face risk or danger to himself, this cop would willingly murder an innocent man. This is not valour. It is not heroism to avoid danger at all costs, even to the extent of taking innocent life. This is cowardice. Most cops will go to long lengths to avoid putting themselves in harms way. The postulate given to us in cop classes was this:
Suppose a police officer were to hear of a call on the dispatch to go to a store in response to what may be a robbery. The officer enters the store, sees a commotion, spots a shiny object in a man’s hand and opens fire, killing the man and possibly wounding others. It turns out the shiny object was a pen, and someone had complained the store’s prices "amounted to robbery". Did this officer do anything wrong? I was the only member of that class to argue that the cop was wrong to shoot. We call cops ‘heroes’. We honor them for ‘facing danger’, for manning a ‘thin blue line’ between citizens and evildoers. In this example, that officer faced no danger, not because the poor shot man held a pen, not a gun, but because he refused to face the possibility that he might be endangered. He would rather shoot without knowing what was going on than possibly get hurt.
Remember all those photos from Fallujah showing the terrorrists shooting at Americans from behind cars, behind women who were in front of the cars? I do. Those cowards would do anything to avoid being shot, preferring to endanger civilians than face bullets. Many cops are the same - they will endanger citizens than face bullets. They that put you at risk to avoid it themselves are not ‘heroes’. They are not standing between you and danger, the citizen and the criminal. They are cowering simps, terrorrists themselves.
There are brave men, in uniforms, and not. These men establish their honor by putting themselves in harms way to protect the innocent, even if it costs them all. A male who would allow his family to be harmed to avoid harm himself is no male but a worm, and we rightly judge him so. Those get in between the evildoer and the innocent, endangering himself in the process, we rightly judge a brave man.
FishOrMan, as I have read him, when I have read him, is a brave man, willing to protect his family from evil, imposing himself between the two.
Perhaps those cops were jealous, inwardly knowing his courage and their lack of it. Perhaps they use that knowledge of his courage to enable their lies. Perhaps they need no such enabler, as some will say that if a person is assertive to an agent of the state, that agent is justified in lying. The dishonest cop, these dishonest cops, will not need to apologize for their lies. Mrs. du Toit defends it for them.
May God grant that I am too harsh on the honorable and enjoyed Mrs. May God protect us from evil men.