thebeardslastcall Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I didn't mean to suggest that. I was assuming he loved his kids regardless of whether he staid or left, as opposed to leaving simply because he was a troll. I meant it, if he was still reading, to encourage him to stay despite the hostilities, for his children. If he's already gone (and wasn't a troll) then I've already failed for my part in pushing him away.
jpahmad Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 A wolf snarls at the door. A sheep cowers in the corner. Between them is a sheepdog. What does that have to do with anything?
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I didn't mean to suggest that. I was assuming he loved his kids regardless of whether he staid or left, as opposed to leaving simply because he was a troll. I meant it, if he was still reading, to encourage him to stay despite the hostilities, for his children. If he's already gone (and wasn't a troll) then I've already failed for my part in pushing him away. I understand. The main thing to remember is that there are certain things you never say, for fear (and respect) that there's a 1% chance your words could be misconstrued. The 1% risk just isn't worth it. I also hope TheFuzz comes back.
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 What does that have to do with anything? Bullies and protectors share so many identical traits that the differences between bullies and protectors is often only Whose Side They Are On. The colloquial expression for this is, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." You may agree or disagree with this, but that was Merrifield's point. 1 1
TheFuzz Posted May 28, 2015 Author Posted May 28, 2015 Wow, lots to read. I haven't had a chance to reply since I was busy at work being "The Man" and "violating people's rights." Then today, my daughter had her first swim meet that actually lasted 5 hours (and that's considered short). Instead of quoting 10+ posts, I'll try to address the topics as a whole: 1. I did not make the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument. My meaning, which seems to be lost on most, was that if Carl wanted to smoke marijuana, why not leave to another state or country where it is legal. As well as moving off grid somewhere, where you can pretty much do as you please. Just because you disagree with a law, and wish to break it, does not exempt you from the consequences of said law. If you believe smoking marijuana should be legal, but decide to smoke it anyways, you run the risk of being arrested. Work on changing the law like Colorado, and other states, did. But until its changed,the rational thing isn't to let a foreign substance cause you to lose your freedom. 2. As to why I spank my child? I do it, frankly, because it works. Again, spanking has been a last resort in my household and my daughter gets spanked maybe 2-3 times a year. I'd like to get it to zero, which is why I'm on this board reading about peaceful parenting. 3. I've been a cop for about 12 years now, I don't get offended on people who don't like me. But yes, in today's society, law enforcement is necessary, but not all functions of law enforcement are necessary. 4. I also mentioned that I lean libertarian...getting closer to minarchist. The problem with libertarians is that, many of them, won't listen to you unless you're a purist. It sounds like some of the advocates of peaceful parenting are going to be the same way; not willing to discuss and debate, but shutting out immediately. 5. I'm also not full into the NAP, because sometimes you need to act first to win the ensuing fight. That violates the NAP. I'm also coming to find out, after a year or so of reading about the NAP (this isn't the first place I've heard about it), most of the advocates aren't even capable of physically defending themselves when someone is the aggressor against them. Also, those who are all in with the NAP typically don't have the survival mindset to win (live through) a fight. I'm here for debate, discussion, and personal growth, and I'm getting it all. I don't care about up votes or down votes...this is just the internet. Be hostile towards me, but make valid arguments that can be debated. I'm not set in my ways, and have changed my views before. If I missed anything, let me know. Oh, thanks MX2010 and others who have defended me, and thanks to Carl and thebeardslastcall for challenging me. Oh, I'm not a troll...I have a life to live outside of a message board, so I may not respond immediately. 1 3
Merrifield Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 A wolf snarls at the door. A sheep cowers in the corner. Between them is a sheepdog. What does that have to do with anything? Bullies and protectors share so many identical traits that the differences between bullies and protectors is often only Whose Side They Are On. The colloquial expression for this is, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." You may agree or disagree with this, but that was Merrifield's point. MMX you are right but in the context of this thread it was also meant as:I'm not the one snarling and I'm not the one hiding. I'm the one in between. Also, take a look at my first post in this thread. I believe I was the first to address thefuzz's approach to parenting.
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 MMX you are right but in the context of this thread it was also meant as: I'm not the one snarling and I'm not the one hiding. I'm the one in between. Also, take a look at my first post in this thread. I believe I was the first to address thefuzz's approach to parenting. Gotcha. About your situation, I hate making people read articles and watch long videos when I'm insecure about my advice, but I've no choice here. This article summarizes Roosh V's experiences with the Doctor Oz show: http://www.rooshv.com/how-i-was-backstabbed-by-dr-oz-and-his-female-producers And this video clip is Roosh's appearance on the show. http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2oc1as You don't have to watch the entire video, nor do you have to agree with Roosh's message, but witness his controlled body posture, eternal calmness of voice, dispassionate delivery of his beliefs, and refusal to be riled into an emotional frenzy. (These concepts should be deeply familiar to you as a police officer, though they may have different names.) ------------------- My advice is for you to always record your sessions with all children at all times. I don't know what the laws / customs are for video-taping them, but video would be ideal. If not, always record everything you say - no exceptions. Then, whenever a child voices that his parents threaten to put him in jail, reply, "I'm really sad that your mother says that to you. You should tell her that when you go home tonight, and tell her that Officer Merrifield is here if she wants to talk about it." (DO NOT use moralistic language, like "wrong", "deserve", "evil", "good", or "bad" - just use emotional words like "happy" and "sad".) There's a significant chance that the mother will get super-angry and complain to your supervisors. If that happens, happily agree to discuss it, evenly voice your concerns, and dispassionately correct the mother whenever she says, "You told me I was wrong to say that!" Also, you should make it a habit to dispassionately charm every supervisor you'll meet. Tell them happy stories about being a cop. Tell them about the good things you've done, and why you think being a good policeman is your unique calling. This way, whenever someone complains, you'll have already planted the seed of calmness, professionalism, and courtesy. And when you display those same traits during a parent-complaint, you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Above all else, you don't have to intervene this way in order for you to be a Good Cop. You're already a Good Cop, who's dispassionately deciding whether the risk of punishment is worth trying to do this particular brand of Good. (When I look inside of myself and ask whether I could risk my career, my family, and my salary to intervene in a six-year old's life, I'm not sure whether I could. So I will not pretend that what I'm asking you to do is either necessary nor easy.) Keep us posted. 1
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 2. As to why I spank my child? I do it, frankly, because it works. Again, spanking has been a last resort in my household and my daughter gets spanked maybe 2-3 times a year. I'd like to get it to zero, which is why I'm on this board reading about peaceful parenting. Could you please summarize a specific series of interactions that leads to your spanking your daughter? I'm not a parent, but I have a sixteen year old niece whom I've lived with for most of her life - (including now). In her interactions with her mother, I estimate that 60% of the time, she's wrong. And that 60% figure has remained steady every year of her life. I think I'm quite good at noticing the precise moment where a conversation could've been handled peacefully, but was handled non-peacefully instead. 5. I'm also not full into the NAP, because sometimes you need to act first to win the ensuing fight. That violates the NAP. I'm also coming to find out, after a year or so of reading about the NAP (this isn't the first place I've heard about it), most of the advocates aren't even capable of physically defending themselves when someone is the aggressor against them. Also, those who are all in with the NAP typically don't have the survival mindset to win (live through) a fight. You're not the only one who has noticed this. I've only recently noticed this and have taken personal steps to correct this. First off, I've been working out steadily for about four months. And I've noticed a vast improvement in my outlook, my personal convictions, and my self-confidence - especially my optimism and desire to work. Secondly, I've decided to take up boxing and then Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in about a year from now. My ultimate goal is to get physically fit, have my first couple of boxing matches - (where I don't care whether I win or lose, but I do want to be a competent representative of the sport) - and then release a picture of myself in boxing gear, and probably bruised, with the caption, "THIS IS WHAT A FUTURE PEACEFUL PARENT LOOKS LIKE!" (I told this to a female FDR member who giggled when she heard it, because she gets it. Libertarians and proponents of the NAP have a branding / marketing problem, and these insidious problems tend to destroy a movement's credibility and popularity until they're corrected. And, YES, boxing is a 100%-conducive to Peaceful Parenting!) Overall, approximately 25% of men have significantly low-Testosterone. And I estimate that among Libertarians / NAP-supporters, the percentage is about 50. 1
PatrickC Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 5. I'm also not full into the NAP, because sometimes you need to act first to win the ensuing fight. That violates the NAP. I'm also coming to find out, after a year or so of reading about the NAP (this isn't the first place I've heard about it), most of the advocates aren't even capable of physically defending themselves when someone is the aggressor against them. Also, those who are all in with the NAP typically don't have the survival mindset to win (live through) a fight. This is a logical fallacy and for a number of reasons. It's similar to the anti abolisionist argument that went along the lines of this, 'most slaves wouldn't be capable of finding work and shelter for themselves, if they were free'. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the NAP to you, as I'm quite sure you understand it already. But you should give this forum the courtsey of providing examples and evidence for the part I've highlighted above. 1
Merrifield Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 5. I'm also not full into the NAP, because sometimes you need to act first to win the ensuing fight. That violates the NAP. I'm also coming to find out, after a year or so of reading about the NAP (this isn't the first place I've heard about it), most of the advocates aren't even capable of physically defending themselves when someone is the aggressor against them. Also, those who are all in with the NAP typically don't have the survival mindset to win (live through) a fight.After 24 years, I don't remember too many things my training officers told me way back in year one, but I do remember one. A truth that has been proved time and time again and was demonstrated by a training officer who was a black belt in some fighting disipline or another, was that you should never have to get into a fight you should always be able to talk your way out of it. I do believe now, that he was a follower of the NAP, probably as a spiritual thing although I never confirmed it. I have found it works very well in a one on one conversation with the exception being extremely mentally disturbed individuals. Another thing from a training officer that I'll never forget is that if you treat people like people (with respect, consideration and empathy) that is how they will treat you. These two lessons are invaluable to me. They didn't come from a training manual but from real men who practiced what they were preaching.
Carl Green Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 2. As to why I spank my child? I do it, frankly, because it works. How much would you personally have to be spanked for that method to work, for us as well, and get you to stop spanking kids? (The rhetorical nature of this question is pretty obvious but you see where I'm going with it, right?)
Carl Green Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 A wolf snarls at the door. A sheep cowers in the corner. Between them is a sheepdog. Good sheepdogs do what their masters tell them, right? If not, they don't get fed.
Merrifield Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Good sheepdogs do what their masters tell them, right? If not, they don't get fed.Nature is the master of good sheepdogs.They protect sheep and fight wolves because it's their nature, regardless of what their handlers tell them.
jpahmad Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 MMX you are right but in the context of this thread it was also meant as: I'm not the one snarling and I'm not the one hiding. I'm the one in between. Also, take a look at my first post in this thread. I believe I was the first to address thefuzz's approach to parenting. who is the one hiding? Nature is the master of good sheepdogs. They protect sheep and fight wolves because it's their nature, regardless of what their handlers tell them. Merrifield, this is not an argument, but it kind of seems like you're drifting into fairytale land here
Carl Green Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Nature is the master of good sheepdogs. They protect sheep and fight wolves because it's their nature, regardless of what their handlers tell them. Is it true that dogs were bread from wolves by humans? I don't recall any wolves protecting sheep in nature but I'll admit my exposure to wild wolves, even by TV, is limited. If an animal is bread by humans to do something against their nature, like protect sheep instead of eating them, can we still call that truly natural behavior? Would a sheep dog that was actually born in 'nature' without human contact still go find a loose group of sheep to keep in line?
jpahmad Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 1. I did not make the "if you don't like it, then leave" argument. My meaning, which seems to be lost on most, was that if Carl wanted to smoke marijuana, why not leave to another state or country where it is legal. As well as moving off grid somewhere, where you can pretty much do as you please. Just because you disagree with a law, and wish to break it, does not exempt you from the consequences of said law. If you believe smoking marijuana should be legal, but decide to smoke it anyways, you run the risk of being arrested. Work on changing the law like Colorado, and other states, did. But until its changed,the rational thing isn't to let a foreign substance cause you to lose your freedom. Yes, we are working on changing the law. The first step is to get people to see the absurdity of it and then petition or vote people in office (if you are one who votes) that will remove the law. But, the first step is always to open up peoples eyes to how awful these laws are. Another way, is to convince cops to stop enforcing it. In Jamaica, for example, smoking and selling weed is illegal. However, no one enforces it period. There are probably less a percentage of people smoking weed in Jamaica than in the U.S. If cops just refuse to enforce it, people will just see the law for what it is; unnecessary. Remember, we're just using marijuana laws as an example. I personally don't smoke weed.
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Yes, we are working on changing the law. The first step is to get people to see the absurdity of it and then petition or vote people in office (if you are one who votes) that will remove the law. But, the first step is always to open up peoples eyes to how awful these laws are. Another way, is to convince cops to stop enforcing it. In Jamaica, for example, smoking and selling weed is illegal. However, no one enforces it period. There are probably less a percentage of people smoking weed in Jamaica than in the U.S. If cops just refuse to enforce it, people will just see the law for what it is; unnecessary. Remember, we're just using marijuana laws as an example. I personally don't smoke weed. The amusing thing is that both Merrifield and TheFuzz have described, in great length, the extent to which they DO NOT enforce marijuana possession laws. In response, no one said, "Good on you, dude." nor "I'm glad about that!" Instead, they pretended TheFuzz was making the "If you don't love it, then leave!" argument. And when it was pointed out that they were wrong to do so, they just carried on the discussion as if they were never wrong in the first place. And they also instead accused TheFuzz of being wrong because "participation in the system strengthens the system". (So he's doing what you wish ALL COPS would do, but he's wrong because he's a cop?) In my opinion, you guys are ridiculously unfocused and unable to graciously admit your mistakes. (Except thebeardslastcall, who graciously admitted his mistakes.) And you're taking out your frustrations with ALL COPS on the one (or two) cops who voluntarily identified themselves as police officers and are mostly coherent with your goals and desires.
jpahmad Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 The amusing thing is that both Merrifield and TheFuzz have described, in great length, the extent to which they DO NOT enforce marijuana possession laws. In response, no one said, "Good on you, dude." nor "I'm glad about that!" No, my first post in response to TheFuzz's introduction was "Wow! Welcome. You've just made my day with your post." Did you not see that MMX2010? Instead, they pretended TheFuzz was making the "If you don't love it, then leave!" argument. And when it was pointed out that they were wrong to do so, they just carried on the discussion as if they were never wrong in the first place. I didn't pretend anything MMX2010. It seemed clear to me and others that he was. Furthermore, your explanation of how he wasn't making the argument made no sense to me at all. However, I'm willing to chalk it up as a matter of me not getting what you're saying. So, if he really didn't intend to convey the "just leave" argument, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding. And I'm sorry to you, TheFuzz, for misunderstanding your interaction with Carl, I will try to think about what you type a little harder before typing a knee-jerk response. And they also instead accused TheFuzz of being wrong because "participation in the system strengthens the system". (So he's doing what you wish ALL COPS would do, but he's wrong because he's a cop?) I never made that claim. So I assume you're not addressing me. And you're taking out your frustrations with ALL COPS on the one (or two) cops who voluntarily identified themselves as police officers and are mostly coherent with your goals and desires. "most coherently with your goals and desires", um, that's yet t be determined MMX210 I'm not so sure he is in-line with any principles that we hold up on this forum. That is why we're having this discussion, to probe, and find out what his core principles are, and, if he follows them. Also, if he shares my principles, to see what his strategy is for following those principles while at the same time working for an institution that is almost constantly in violation of those principles. I hold all cops to the same standard with which I hold myself. I used to work in the public education system. When, through careful analytical thought and help from FDR, I realized that my behavior, my very presence in these schools, was completely against my newly formed principles. It caused massive cognitive distortion and a crisis of conscience. So, I did the only thing I could do, I planned an exit strategy and I quit. It was a big risk, but I did it. I am a much happier person now. I don't blame the cops for being in the position they are in currently. But, if they truly share my principles, then what is their exit strategy? What can they possibly do to keep from a crisis of conscience? How long can they keep up the "I don't arrest people for victimless crimes" act? Are not paying taxes a victimless crime? Would they arrest someone for tax fraud? At some point there is going to be a collision between their moral principles and the state.
thebeardslastcall Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 2. As to why I spank my child? I do it, frankly, because it works. Again, spanking has been a last resort in my household and my daughter gets spanked maybe 2-3 times a year. I'd like to get it to zero, which is why I'm on this board reading about peaceful parenting. You seem sure it is working. I think this needs a clarification on what you mean by "works". What exactly are you measuring? If I beat my son and he becomes submissive, but then 10 years later he rapes a woman because of what I really taught him, did this work? It feels like your measurement is very short sighted and looking at the wrong metrics, without full comprehension of the behavioral and understandings you're imprinting onto your child by hitting them. Hitting someone is saying they already know and understand, they just have to accept, and that hitting them is the way to get them to accept it. If my son is struggling to understand a math problem me hitting him doesn't teach him how to solve the problem. If I hit him, tell him the answer is 8 and he writes it down in compliance, did that work? To understand why hitting your kids works or doesn't work you really need to define what "work" means and how you are measuring it and what you've really accomplished and taught with your actions. Accepting an answer forcefully given and knowing how to get to that answer and why it's the correct answer are two totally different things and the child will never learn how to do the math this way. They may eventually figure it out, but hitting them didn't help things along. One of the byproducts of this treatment is the bully who beats up another kid to get them to give them the answer, because this is how they learned to get answers. Don't confuse obedience out of fear from obedience out of understanding. If I might get hit for speaking up, getting hit just teaches me to be quiet, it doesn't teach me how to speak without getting hit and it assumes the kid meant harm when speaking up instead of simply not understanding why what they were doing is wrong.
Merrifield Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Yes, we are working on changing the law. The first step is to get people to see the absurdity of it and then petition or vote people in office (if you are one who votes) that will remove the law. But, the first step is always to open up peoples eyes to how awful these laws are. Another way, is to convince cops to stop enforcing it. In Jamaica, for example, smoking and selling weed is illegal. However, no one enforces it period. There are probably less a percentage of people smoking weed in Jamaica than in the U.S. If cops just refuse to enforce it, people will just see the law for what it is; unnecessary. Remember, we're just using marijuana laws as an example. I personally don't smoke weed. I commend "we".Working within the system is what we do. I posted this link in an earlier post but you may have missed it http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. I know quite a few cops who find marijuana possession laws absurd and don't enforce them. Any cop will tell you it's not the people smoking weed that are violence problems or committing theft crimes. Violence is most often associated with alcohol. Merrifield, this is not an argument, but it kind of seems like you're drifting into fairytale land hereThe whole sheepdog thing was a response to when Carl called me a "wolf in sheep's clothing". I was wrong to let myself be led away from the issues to pursue it. You are right jpahmad, it's silly and I'm done with it.
TheFuzz Posted May 28, 2015 Author Posted May 28, 2015 After 24 years, I don't remember too many things my training officers told me way back in year one, but I do remember one. A truth that has been proved time and time again and was demonstrated by a training officer who was a black belt in some fighting disipline or another, was that you should never have to get into a fight you should always be able to talk your way out of it. I do believe now, that he was a follower of the NAP, probably as a spiritual thing although I never confirmed it. I have found it works very well in a one on one conversation with the exception being extremely mentally disturbed individuals. Another thing from a training officer that I'll never forget is that if you treat people like people (with respect, consideration and empathy) that is how they will treat you. These two lessons are invaluable to me. They didn't come from a training manual but from real men who practiced what they were preaching. I've talked my way out of more fights than I've been in during my career. The only legitimate physical altercations I've been in, minus one, the person was mentally ill, or under the influence of narcotics. Yes, we are working on changing the law. The first step is to get people to see the absurdity of it and then petition or vote people in office (if you are one who votes) that will remove the law. But, the first step is always to open up peoples eyes to how awful these laws are. Another way, is to convince cops to stop enforcing it. In Jamaica, for example, smoking and selling weed is illegal. However, no one enforces it period. There are probably less a percentage of people smoking weed in Jamaica than in the U.S. If cops just refuse to enforce it, people will just see the law for what it is; unnecessary. Remember, we're just using marijuana laws as an example. I personally don't smoke weed. Good. I support the decriminalization of marijuana possession. The problem is, you're fighting an uphill battle for most of the country. Honestly, most officers I know don't enforce misdemeanor possession. This is a logical fallacy and for a number of reasons. It's similar to the anti abolisionist argument that went along the lines of this, 'most slaves wouldn't be capable of finding work and shelter for themselves, if they were free'. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the NAP to you, as I'm quite sure you understand it already. But you should give this forum the courtsey of providing examples and evidence for the part I've highlighted above. It is not. The study of body language lends much to the decision on when to attack first. 1 1
MMX2010 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 TheFuzz: I'm also not full into the NAP, because sometimes you need to act first to win the ensuing fight. That violates the NAP. I'm also coming to find out, after a year or so of reading about the NAP (this isn't the first place I've heard about it), most of the advocates aren't even capable of physically defending themselves when someone is the aggressor against them. Also, those who are all in with the NAP typically don't have the survival mindset to win (live through) a fight. PatrickC: This is a logical fallacy and for a number of reasons. It's similar to the anti abolisionist argument that went along the lines of this, 'most slaves wouldn't be capable of finding work and shelter for themselves, if they were free'. I'm not going to insult your intelligence by explaining the NAP to you, as I'm quite sure you understand it already. But you should give this forum the courtsey of providing examples and evidence for the part I've highlighted above. TheFuzz: It is not. The study of body language lends much to the decision on when to attack first. From my perspective, TheFuzz is saying: (1) that the overwhelming majority of Libertarians / NAP supporters have little direct experience with violence, but claim to know better than policemen on how to spot violent individuals. And (2) that Libertarians / NAP supporters will wrongfully interpret forward-looking police intervention as The Initiation Of Force. For example, I trust a police officer more than an average person when determining which drunk individual is about to imminently turn violent. 1
thebeardslastcall Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I've talked my way out of more fights than I've been in during my career. The only legitimate physical altercations I've been in, minus one, the person was mentally ill, or under the influence of narcotics. Is it common knowledge among cops that people under the influence of certain drugs are highly sensitive to micro-expressions? Meaning if you feel any fear around these people they're likely to pick up on it even if you don't know you're giving off signals and will in turn react violently when they wouldn't have otherwise.
TheFuzz Posted May 29, 2015 Author Posted May 29, 2015 Is it common knowledge among cops that people under the influence of certain drugs are highly sensitive to micro-expressions? Meaning if you feel any fear around these people they're likely to pick up on it even if you don't know you're giving off signals and will in turn react violently when they wouldn't have otherwise. No, its not common knowledge. I'm currently developing a body language lesson plan to submit to the state law enforcement training body to get approved (though I keep getting "volunteered" for projects, so its going longer than necessary).
shirgall Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 It is not. The study of body language lends much to the decision on when to attack first. Indeed, responding properly to indications that the decision to use force has been made (ability and opportunity established, recognition of jeopardy is the crucial third piece) is not initiation of force. "The body language thing" is covered extensively by Mas Ayoob in his JUDF training (full disclosure, I was certified by LFI as a JUDF instructor years ago). It was approved by most state DPSST curricula.
MMX2010 Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 I didn't pretend anything MMX2010. It seemed clear to me and others that he was. Furthermore, your explanation of how he wasn't making the argument made no sense to me at all. However, I'm willing to chalk it up as a matter of me not getting what you're saying. So, if he really didn't intend to convey the "just leave" argument, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding. And I'm sorry to you, TheFuzz, for misunderstanding your interaction with Carl, I will try to think about what you type a little harder before typing a knee-jerk response. You're right. It was mean of me to say you were "pretending". I'm sorry. I am exceptionally good at teaching children to read, and I noticed that the concrete noun Carl mentioned in his first post was "drugs". TheFuzz, in his second post, mentioned "drugs". Carl, in this third post mentioned "drugs". And so TheFuzz, in his fourth post, must've been implying "drugs". (Good communicators don't magically lose a highly emotionally-charged concrete noun like "drugs".) I'm not so sure he is in-line with any principles that we hold up on this forum. That is why we're having this discussion, to probe, and find out what his core principles are, and, if he follows them. Also, if he shares my principles, to see what his strategy is for following those principles while at the same time working for an institution that is almost constantly in violation of those principles. I hold all cops to the same standard with which I hold myself. I used to work in the public education system. When, through careful analytical thought and help from FDR, I realized that my behavior, my very presence in these schools, was completely against my newly formed principles. It caused massive cognitive distortion and a crisis of conscience. So, I did the only thing I could do, I planned an exit strategy and I quit. It was a big risk, but I did it. I am a much happier person now. I don't blame the cops for being in the position they are in currently. But, if they truly share my principles, then what is their exit strategy? What can they possibly do to keep from a crisis of conscience? How long can they keep up the "I don't arrest people for victimless crimes" act? Are not paying taxes a victimless crime? Would they arrest someone for tax fraud? At some point there is going to be a collision between their moral principles and the state. I hear what you're saying, but I do support the "If I don't do it, that guy will do it." argument. An analogy: as much as people say Pick-Up Artistry is non-empathetic and exploitive, if I don't bang this chick, some other guy will bang this chick. (Say all you want about a chick's agency; when she wants to bang someone, she'll bang someone.) Knowing myself as a person, I'm wholly confident that I'm more empathetic, more morally concerned, and just a better overall man than the majority of men she has to choose from. So if I don't bang this chick, someone else will bang this chick. (And you should see how horrible he is.) Same with police. As much as you correctly say "the system" sucks, "the system" will not be removed within our lifetimes. And comparatively noble individuals do make "the system" better than the majority of its alternatives.
PatrickC Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 It is not. The study of body language lends much to the decision on when to attack first. This still isn't a clear enough explanation for why initiating force is necessary. Certainly I used to hear such arguments as a gaffer managing building sites, when tempers flared. Which they would have a lot if I'd let them. However the NAP doesn't dismiss a percieved threat as unactionable. You would just need some fairly conclusive evidence that it was proportional to convince others that it was a real threat of force. You know yourself as a police officer, that any aggressor would have a hard time convincing you that the first punch was a defensive one. In my experience most acts of violence can be avoided, by either walking away or by giving them warnings about the outcome of such an action. Such as a lost job with no references, pressing charges or one time laughingly, 'I'll be speaking to your mother' and yes it worked. I haven't been involved in a fight for over 25 years, as is the case for most people I know, so it seems to me that they are mostly avoidable. The people that do are normally hotheads or people that prefer to escalate to violence.
Merrifield Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 I interpreted the words at face value. A cop serves his superior officer, who serves his superior, etc. If you want to test this, tell a cop to slap his captain (or any superior officer) and see who serves who. I'm only here trying to point out the wolf in sheep's clothing that's trying to appear as a sheep in wolfs clothing. To address your comment about who does he serve I'm quoting part of my previous post in case you missed. It originally took awhile to appear because it was moderated. ...I started this career with the view that police work as working for the citizens of the community. Our civil service system is set up so that the city government (police chief, mayor, & city manager) can't discipline me without the support of the civil service board. This is my protection against them. This is also the basis of the direct connection to the citizen employer. Any citizen can petition this board for a review of any police officer's conduct. In essence, any citizen has the same power over me as the mayor, city manager, or the chief of police. The oath to the constitution is primarily an oath to the bill of rights. In my view, an oath to protect the rights of the citizen. It has been suggested that the wolf/sheep analogy is "heading into fairy tale land". At first I was offended by your analogy too me as a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I'm not anymore. You've actually helped me realize why I started police work.When I was a child 5 or 6 years old I lived in a neighborhood where kids spent all summer outside with very little adult supervision. There was boy, a bully, 3 or 4 years older. He would hit me and push me down, but never bloodied me. This went on for a few weeks before Michael came around. Michael's family life was dysfunctional, to what degree I do not know, and he wasn't always around. Michael was 2 years older than me and much bigger. One day the bully had me down and Michael came to my aid and stopped the bully. Needless to say I thought very highly of him ever since. I moved from that neighborhood shortly after, was 8 years gone, and moved back. Michael now lived with his mother and grandmother and we became close again. I was in eighth grade when I was faced with another bully. This bully I stood up to fighting back. It worked not just on that bully but I didn't have anymore violent confrontations with bullies until after high school. `Michael was probably one of the biggest boys in our high school yet he never got into fights and seemed to get along with everyone. We had are own clique in which I was the youngest. I hated school especially after most of my clique graduated. I was in a vocational program those last two years and that made it more bearable. After high school he went on to college working on an associates in criminal justice. We still hung out everyday his mom's place was where everyone gathered. When I graduated, I was working on a farm and full-time. It was hard work but I liked it. I decided to go to college and signed up for general studies for the fall. I wasn't much good in academia. I went back to work at the farm and sat out the second semester. The local police department announced they were hiring so Michael and I took the civil service test together. He scored high and got hired quick. There was a problem with one of the other guys on the list which held up my hiring for 2 years. Eventually, I worked with Michael for 3 years before he quit police work. Our relationship fell off from there and I must admit it was my fault. I didn't realize till this thread why it did. Now I know that I felt like he gave up on fighting bullies, the virtue I loved him for. I felt betrayed but have ignored my feelings until now. Sorry this was so long winded but I just wanted to Thank you Carl Bartelt
Merrifield Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 This still isn't a clear enough explanation for why initiating force is necessary. Certainly I used to hear such arguments as a gaffer managing building sites, when tempers flared. Which they would have a lot if I'd let them. However the NAP doesn't dismiss a percieved threat as unactionable. You would just need some fairly conclusive evidence that it was proportional to convince others that it was a real threat of force. You know yourself as a police officer, that any aggressor would have a hard time convincing you that the first punch was a defensive one. In my experience most acts of violence can be avoided, by either walking away or by giving them warnings about the outcome of such an action. Such as a lost job with no references, pressing charges or one time laughingly, 'I'll be speaking to your mother' and yes it worked. I haven't been involved in a fight for over 25 years, as is the case for most people I know, so it seems to me that they are mostly avoidable. The people that do are normally hotheads or people that prefer to escalate to violence. I agree Patrick, as I have stated in a previous post, a person should be able to deescalate most situations verbally resorting to violence only in self-defense.There is something to be said of the body language argument. Imagine a old west stlye gunfight. As soon as it becomes evident what is happenning as evidence by body language and verbal indicators the first aggression has already taken place. It would also apply to a street fight. The first aggression occurs before the first punch. The man who draws his pistol first or throws the first punch is escalating what has already started. I don't think the escalation in self-defense violates NAP.
MMX2010 Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 Our relationship fell off from there and I must admit it was my fault. I didn't realize till this thread why it did. Now I know that I felt like he gave up on fighting bullies, the virtue I loved him for. I felt betrayed but have ignored my feelings until now. If someone else no longer lived up to the virtues you admired him for, it's not your fault that the relationship fell off. Imagine a old west stlye gunfight with. As soon as it becomes evident what is happenning as evidence by body language and verbal indicators the first aggression has already taken place. It would also apply to a street fight. The first aggression occurs before the first punch. I think TheFuzz believes that people who follow the NAP (don't know whether it's the majority, or a sizable minority) are so inexperienced with violence that they're also inexperienced with recognizing violence before it happens. Hence, they wrongfully interpret "forward-thinking" preventative policing as violations of the NAP.
PatrickC Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 The man who draws his pistol first or throws the first punch is escalating what has already started. I don't think the escalation in self-defense violates NAP. Where weapons are being drawn then you have secure evidence for a 'perceived' threat of force, which the NAP would oblige you proportional self defense against. The more deadly the weapons being weilded, the easier the threat is to assess. I'm not sure that the raising of fists could be considered as that dangerous of a situation to warrant the first swing.
Carl Green Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 The local police department announced they were hiring so Michael and I took the civil service test together. He scored high and got hired quick. There was a problem with one of the other guys on the list which held up my hiring for 2 years. Eventually, I worked with Michael for 3 years before he quit police work. Our relationship fell off from there and I must admit it was my fault. I didn't realize till this thread why it did. Now I know that I felt like he gave up on fighting bullies, the virtue I loved him for. I felt betrayed but have ignored my feelings until now. Sorry this was so long winded but I just wanted to Thank you Carl Bartelt I greatly and truly appreciate your (and TheFuzz's if he also has it) desire to protect your fellow brethren. I am merely trying to bring to light certain contradictions (like the horrendous amount of people being raped of their freedom and thrown in prison for possessing a part of a non-poisonous plant just to keep the fucking police and prison guard union's ranks filled and paid for) I perceive in the methods of how that's accomplished. Police will more likely do to me what their superior officers tell them to do, not what I have contractually agreed they're allowed to do to me and until that changes they will ALWAYS be a threat to me. Lastly, as for me moving, that is exactly my plan. I would like to get as far away from this shithole as soon as I can.
shirgall Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 Where weapons are being drawn then you have secure evidence for a 'perceived' threat of force, which the NAP would oblige you proportional self defense against. The more deadly the weapons being weilded, the easier the threat is to assess. I'm not sure that the raising of fists could be considered as that dangerous of a situation to warrant the first swing. The condition TheFuzz is referring to is more subtle. For example, he and I have observed hundreds if not thousands of times in training where people have drawn a pistol from their holster. We can tell when someone is starting that motion. To others not familiar with it, it would appear to be precognition when we see it and react to it. Similar things happen when someone prepares to throw a punch, pull out a knife, or fight handcuffing. For example, ask TheFuzz if he should be nervous about someone standing behind a car door, feet shoulder width apart, standing erect, hands up but low near the center of the chest, shoulders oriented straight at you, and watching your hands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA-xIssgT-o (IPSC master at work)
PatrickC Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 It still doesn't nullify the NAP. If there is a percieved threat, such as you say. In which case a knife, gun or whatever would be easily obtainable as a threat motive after the event.
jpahmad Posted May 29, 2015 Posted May 29, 2015 Eventually, I worked with Michael for 3 years before he quit police work. Our relationship fell off from there and I must admit it was my fault. I didn't realize till this thread why it did. Now I know that I felt like he gave up on fighting bullies, the virtue I loved him for. I felt betrayed but have ignored my feelings until now. Sorry this was so long winded but I just wanted to Thank you Carl Bartelt Thank you for your heartfelt response Merrifield. I'm not Carl, but I did post the "fairytale land" comment. The problem here is knowing exactly who the bullies are. It's not an exact science obviously. I don't see how quitting the force (your friend) means he gave up on fighting bullies. Certainly there are many other things involved in being a police officer than fighting bullies. For example, when the person you have to arrest is not a bully. That certainly can cause a crisis of conscience. Moreover, why is it always assumed that people who are not cops don't want to fight bullies? It's a sort of a false dichotomy, like if you are not a cop, then you can not protect yourself. There is no one "hiding in the corner." I don't know where you get this idea. Guns have made things very equal over the years. It's not that easy to just barge in and bully an armed citizenry. Unless, you have a monopoly on the use of force like the government.
Recommended Posts