I feel compelled to write this because of a convergence of two different sources of news. In the newspapers, all of us, worldwide, are noticing the behaviour of the police in America and I would like to set this against articles written by Elisa in which she writes about the hundreds of dogs which a needlessly killed by police officers.
In addition there have been cases of cats (1 & 2) being unjustifiably shot by police officers and those in authority and there is a well known case of an animal advocate who was arrested. It would seem that not only are citizens of the USA under an increased and potential threat from a developing violent behaviour by those “at the top”, the police, but also their pets.
My opinion is that there are two main reasons why the American police seem to have taken a new direction in law enforcement:
- an ever present threat of terrorism which has become a way of life resulting in a permanent state of heightened security and underlying anxiety.
- a reaction by the establishment, and police forces are firmly part of the establishment, in response to a significant proportion of restless and disgruntled citizens of the nation who, after the financial crisis and six long years of recovery have decided that the banks and other members of the establishment need to be accountable for their misdeeds.
Has anyone else got a theory as to why the police forces of America are so harsh? I have to say that there are signs of a similar attitude and behaviour in British police. It is the era of Big Brother. In fact a senior police officer in the UK confessed that the UK is heading towards a police state because of the permanent threat of terrorist attacks.
I would argue that the police are disengaging their brains because as far as I’m aware the police are meant to be the servant of the people. They are paid out of taxpayers money and they’re there to protect people. What we are seeing appears to be the opposite: they are becoming our masters and they are inviolable and untouchable.
We all know the cases, of which there have been several, where American police have, in the eyes of many, needlessly killed a person, the latest of which is the death of Eric Garner whose last words were “I can’t breathe”. On video, he was strangled to death by a police officer in a choke hold.
Before that there was a 12-year-old boy shot dead by police in Cleveland Park. The police mistook a toy gun for a real gun but there was no need to shoot him dead. And then of course we have the well-known case of Michael Brown in Ferguson. There are other less well publicised cases.
No police officers have been charged, indicted or faced prosecution for what many people see as serious crimes.
It may be ironic to note that Eliza states that increasingly police officers are likely to be held accountable for callously shooting a family pet through lawsuits filed by the owner of the cat or dog. It is probably easier for the owner of a cat or dog to sue a police officer for killing their pet than it is for the public to obtain a similar sort of justice when a police officer kills a person without justification. That said it is almost impossible to successfully sue the police for anything because judges will find for the police on the basis of “public interest”.
An indication that American police have taken a new direction is that the most violent cops – the SWAT teams – were sent out 3,000 times in 1980 but are, today, used 50,000 times a year. There is a reported case of a man who was accused of organising cockfighting being arrested by a SWAT team! Overkill or what?
Other people have argued that there has been a gradual militarisation of the American police force. These days, the police fight wars rather than individual people.
This form of police behaviour further alienates the police from the public creating more distrust and disrespect and therefore more possibilities for further injustified violence on both sides.
Some people would define the police force as a terrorist group, themselves, but without a political agenda.
SWAT, even with warrants in hand (never heard of any judge denying the request), perform violent home invasions. Sometimes, they storm into the wrong residence. OOOPS!
Many times, as we all know, they mistakenly assume that an animal is vicious or sick. Without benefit of animal experts, they have the right to destroy them. Yet, they have trained dog partners capable of great harm. These dogs are considered officers themselves. Should a citizen shoot and kill one of those dogs because they feel endangered, they have killed a police officer, considered to be one of the most heinous crimes there is.
Do you wonder where this shift in the dynamics of society is going to end up?
The image is shocking. “Essential liberty” is being given up and it is the same in the UK. Apparently about 30% of British people are fearful of saying what they want to say. That is not good. The so called secure websites that begin with https have “trap doors”. Google wants website owners to operate secure sites (https sites) but there seems to be little genuine security.
Michael I don’t know if it’s a cultural thing, but once corruption and racism are allowed to become endemic, you have a major problem. Especially when the worst individuals hold the highest positions in authority, because they set the tone. Brushing off the death of members of the public or domestic animals as “no case to answer”, is seen as the police being above the laws by which the rest of us have to abide.
UK police aren’t any different, they’re not carrying weapons. Look at the cover-ups over Hillsborough and the phone-hacking scandal?
Once the public begin losing trust in the honesty and integrity of the police, it’s inevitable there will be a backlash against them. That of course doesn’t excuse the large number of people both in America and the UK who who used genuine protest marches to loot and vandalise their own neighbourhoods. The police then toughen their stance and so the cycle continues.
from Benjamin Franklin (1706 – 1790) American inventor, journalist, printer, diplomat, and statesman:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
I don’t even dare get started sharing my thoughts on this subject!
Unlike dear Michael, I find I cannot “pussyfoot” around my views on it, and have very, very little good and few constructive things to say.
Last night I had reason to speak with two of these humorless farks, and all I could think of during the conversation was what I had recently read in my copy of the book “The Sociopath Next Door”: those two nimrods fit just about every aspect of the description of true psychopaths (with a bit of ‘pack mentality’ thrown in).
(One dog = one dog brain.
Two dogs = half a dog brain.
Three dogs = NO dog brain)
On the upside, I guess my house is safe from tigers with these two clowns running around.
Disturbed, disturbing, and downright scary.