imported post
Rottie wrote:
Citizen wrote:
Rottie wrote:
SNIP Ihave had great interactions with LEOs while open carrying and don't feel the need to be hostile to them or generalize the bad actions of a few to all others.
I don't think the issue is so simple asgeneralizing the bad actions of a few.
I think it is more in the direction of the fact that any LEO who remains on a force must hold some amount of agreement with the ne'er-do-wells on that force and the policies that result in little to no accountability. If any given LEO disagreed sufficiently, he'd resign, protest, or work to get changes. It makes him a part of the problem.
SNIP We should not hold this officer, or any officer, accountable for the poor behavior of others at their department. We should only hold them accountable for their own actions.
You understand such philosophy immediately means
no one can hold the miscreant cops responsible. If the other cops can't or won't, and the miscreants won't hold themselves responsible, and the public can't hold them collectively responsible, who can get things changed? Effectively, I mean.
Cops are a part of a team, an officially constituted one at that. The other team members have more than ample opportunity to clean the place up. Especially, if, as others say, there are only a very few bad cops. How can just a very few bad cops buck and resist the demand for ethics from such a strong majority of good cops?
Also, how is it that these good cops, the heroes in blue, tough men and women who stand up to felons, cannot stand up to a "very few" bad cops? And, how is it that all the good cops will endanger themselves to "protect and serve", but fail to protect the public from bad cops?
Holding the group responsible for the actions of team members is a very old method, and legitimate. The group, any group,has the opportunity to police themselves; a refusal to do so shows agreement or willingness to tolerate the bad apples.
From what little has been offered, it sounds like this coffee shop manager has more knowledge of what is happening in the local PD, or perhaps, what is not happening.
The bottom line is that it is going to take public pressure. Holding the mayor responsible by voting him out of office is an act of holding him responsible for the acts of others. I see no reason why an individual member of the public cannot and should not bring pressure when he sees an opportunity.
Holding the individual cops responsible for the actions of others only becomes necessary when the cops, or any group, doesn't take care of their own problems. From another angle, lets say a highly dedicated and professional department instantly handles any abuses of authority, firmly. And such things remain rare. Then, when one does occur, I as a member of the public can know that while nobody is an angel and somebody is gonna screw up sooner or later, I know it will be dealtwith swiftly and permanently.
