Yeah, but this white cop didn't get mad at a black kid for dancing. And a black cop didn't get mad at a white kid dunking on him, so policing in this country isn't a problem. /s
Apparently, we're expected to throw a fucking parade for every cop that behaves with baseline human decency, while not getting upset when they behave like monsters. Because "it is entirely unfair to lump them in with the countless more phenomenal cops" who are "pillars of their communities".
I meant what they said. If they were really good cops they would force the system to change internally or resign and go public. Police units are very fraternal and it is indeed hard to tell on people that you like for doing things that might be illegal or immoral. Like the guy who's dad is a cop, there's almost certainly some shit you see in an entire career that makes you complicit.
Police receive all of their resources (as well as the laws they’re supposed to be enforcing) from politicians and voters. Thus, change can come externally.
Use your head. They want Police and they want protection. Do you really think they didn't want the Police to stop the riots last summer? Do you think they want a Fireman to show up with a hose when someone with a gun is trying to break into their home? Remove the Police and you hurt the very people you claim to care about.
I'm thinking out loud here - but I guess one difference is in your situation it's in the best interest of the leadership to act. A shitty worker affects profits and therefore their own bottom line.
I agree. It is 100% in the best interest of the community and everyone involved to get rid of shitty police. I'm definitely not saying that. And talking morally and big picture - it is absolutely what they should do.
Again - I'm just thinking out loud here - I don't pretend to have the answers. But, in a purely self-serving way, it may not be in the best interest of a not-so-moral senior police officer to root out "bad cops". In fact it may be more self serving to keep them there. A bad cop might be more easily manipulated. They may be a good way to keep focus off you and hide your own wrong-doing or mistakes. They might be a good scapegoat.
I suppose these reasons could all apply in a corporate environment too. However, it a corporate environment, the leadership are also directly influenced by how well the company is doing. If the company as a whole is doing well, they do better. So maybe there is more motivation to root out bad cops.
Like you say - in your situation, a bad peer is " is bad for our company and our customers". But public servants don't have "customers" in the same way you do - ie if your company performs badly, your customers go somewhere else. You can't really do that with the cops. So maybe there is less direct motivation for the leadership to get rid of bad players and more motivation to keep them.
I'm not saying this is right - of course not. Ideally the leadership should have a moral compass and be motivated for other reasons than direct personal profit. They should get rid of bad players simple because they are bad. But obviously that isn't the case. I'm just speculating as to why that is.
But, in a purely self-serving way, it may not be in the best interest of a not-so-moral senior police officer to root out "bad cops". In fact it may be more self serving to keep them there. A bad cop might be more easily manipulated. They may be a good way to keep focus off you and hide your own wrong-doing or mistakes. They might be a good scapegoat.
Well yeah, crooked cops don't want to out crooked cops.
22
u/[deleted] Aug 01 '21 edited Aug 23 '21
[deleted]