State of Things

[Arkandel]

@Derp said in State of Things:

How much is too much?

Breaking the law they are sworn to uphold is too much.

I'm not saying it does happen, or to what extent (after all that's what I was asking) but the line here is pretty damn clear.

[Derp]

@Arkandel said in State of Things:

Breaking the law they are sworn to uphold is too much.

Do you really think it's that simple, though? I mean, realistically, how many laws would you say you break every day? Speeding? Jaywalking? Perhaps littering? Do you always do everything you're legally required to do in a timely manner? Etc.

The law, and the importance of various laws, are nebulous in the eyes of most, and should not be confused with justice. What if the procedure allows a child rapist to go free, even though there is a mountain of evidence against him? What if that knife wasn't technically found according to all the proper warrants, but is clearly the murder weapon and has fingerprints on it? Etc.

What if those laws are morally indefensible, such as laws that enforce discrimination that haven't been swatted down by a court? They do exist, I promise. We still see them crop up. There are heated debates on both sides of the laws about which restrooms transgender people can use. Do you think the police have no personal opinion on that? Or that those opinions might affect their reasoning?

Police are human too. The're not Justice-bots. And just like we do, they can often justify breaking a law when it's convenient (like we do when we mentally justify speeding) or serves a 'more noble' purpose. Things aren't always that clear-cut. And while I agree, in a perfect system, this kind of thing shouldn't happen, we're not talking about a perfect system.

It's just really not quite so bright line. There are so many shades of gray. Every one is situational, and whether an action is 'right' or 'wrong' largely depends on perspective and how invested you are in seeing a specific outcome come to pass.

[Rook]

@Arkandel said in State of Things:

Is the 'blue code' a real thing in your opinion? Do cops back illegal actions taken by their peers to the point of committing perjury or hiding/modifying evidence?

I want to point something out here. This 'code' that is being asked about is not just a 'blue' code, as @Derp says. There is a 'white' code (for doctors backing each other up on bad calls so that colleagues don't get sued), there is an 'IT' code that I've seen over and over and over, not just in one organization, but almost every one that I've worked directly with. Many of which are Fortune 100 companies. I know for a fact that there is a code amongst Accounting/Finance teams, Management and HR teams, the list goes on.

People instinctively circle the wagons around a comrade that they feel is going to be unjustly prosecuted for a "small thing", but the problem is that, over time, these wagon-circling parties start grating on the sense of right and wrong. Those involved start justifying two things: 1) that they have to defend themselves to do their jobs right, 2) the other people are just 'out to get them'. Right or wrong, just look around and you'll see proof of this where you work, where you go to school. Fuck, it's a core trope in TV Dramas.

Over large spans of time, a person's morals change, out of group and personal preservation. Not initially out of a sense of 'fuck them', but there is a lot of that in there.

I have come to this one conclusion about racism (from this one angle) from knowing a lot of police. Police officers of both sexes, of at least six races, and all of the ones that I'm thinking of are very against the habitual criminals. I don't call them racist, because these same individuals respect upstanding citizens, they segment them differently than they do the criminal element, the ones that they've booked and jailed time and time again. That is something that compounds the problem is personal experience with some of the perpetrators of the crimes that they are investigating and/or called to. Each one of these racially diverse cops uses the 'N' word, and what might surprise you is that it isn't just against the black segment of their 'clientele'. The word (at least amongst that very small segment that I know) is applied to anyone who is (heavily simplified) hell-bent on a life of crime because they don't want to pursue any other life.

Is it right? No. Is it real? Yes. At least in my visible sliver of the 'world'.

[Arkandel]

@Derp said in State of Things:

Do you really think it's that simple, though? I mean, realistically, how many laws would you say you break every day? Speeding? Jaywalking? Perhaps littering? Do you always do everything you're legally required to do in a timely manner? Etc.

Well, it is that simple, yes.

For starters I don't carry a gun. The consequences of the worst laws I break are at best marginal. Shooting a guy who's no threat to me (or covering it up for my buddy who did) isn't remotely on the same level as jaywalking. I don't understand what argument you're trying to make there - those things aren't comparable.

For another I'm not explicitly sworn to uphold the law, nor does my failing to do so undermine my peers' efforts to do so. When cops are caught covering for each other there is doubt cast over the lot; it's a sometimes unfair but given the circumstances not entirely unreasonable response.

[Derp]

@Arkandel said in State of Things:

The consequences of the worst laws I break are at best marginal. Shooting a guy who's no threat to me (or covering it up for my buddy who did) isn't remotely on the same level as jaywalking. I don't understand what argument you're trying to make there - those things aren't comparable.

Aren't they? You say that the consequences of the worst laws you break are marginal. But how do you know that they don't feel the same way? What 'marginal' effects would you say that these laws have? Speed limits exist for good reasons, both for urban planning and public safety. One might say that the consequences of you breaking those laws are a bit more than marginal, especially if it becomes public perception that this is the norm.

'No threat to them' is also very subjective. Studies have shown, time and again, that civilians placed in the same situation are often the most liable to shoot first. The trained officers tend to not shoot quite so easily.

So yes, these things are entirely comparable, because they're completely subjective. Whatever mental processes you go through in your mind to justify your actions are also the ones that they go through.

And if you've ever taken an oath of citizenship, or done a pledge of allegiance, haven't you sworn to uphold those same laws, at least in principle? What does it matter if you carry a gun?

[Arkandel]

@Derp said in State of Things:

Aren't they? You say that the consequences of the worst laws you break are marginal.

I still don't see what you're trying to say. A hint: Comparing needlessly killing someone with just about anything else will almost always get the same response from me: It's worse, yes. You mentioned jaywalking and littering, what did you expect me to say?

'No threat to them' is also very subjective. Studies have shown, time and again, that civilians placed in the same situation are often the most liable to shoot first. The trained officers tend to not shoot quite so easily.

I never said the blue code is a real thing - I asked. I'm an outsider, and most of what I know comes from movies and wikipedia articles. Nor am I saying cops in general are particular culprits, but the entire Black Lives Matter movement (at least partially) does, so that needs to be addressed as well.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of police officers are perfectly good at their job, and probably no better or worse human beings than anyone who's not wearing a uniform. But yes, the bar is raised significantly higher for a person who carries a gun. It's just how it is, there's no getting around that.

Of course cops are human. I might cover for a buddy at work if he deletes a file by mistake, and I'd expect cops to do the same thing over somewhat minor things - if one scratches their police car while parking it and his partner backs him up by saying it happened while they were parked or something... that is fine. It's common behavior.

But the escalation here is where the paradigm completely shatters. If I fuck up in my job in the worst possible way then maybe data will be lost or there could be private information leaking - that's bad. But it's probably not "a guy got shot in the face"-level bad. And you better believe it if I figure out one of my peers is... I dunno, selling data I'll turn them in, no questions asked.

[Ganymede]

@Arkandel said in State of Things:

But the escalation here is where the paradigm completely shatters. If I fuck up in my job in the worst possible way then maybe data will be lost or there could be private information leaking - that's bad. But it's probably not "a guy got shot in the face"-level bad. And you better believe it if I figure out one of my peers is... I dunno, selling data I'll turn them in, no questions asked.

Let me try to explain briefly with an example. Considering the following excerpt from a fictional police report.

After receiving direction from dispatch of a domestic violence incident involving firearms on Main Street, I proceeded by cruiser to the area in question. I was informed that the suspect was a young black male, 25, dressed in blue jeans and a black hoodie. As I came to the area in question, I saw a person matching the description walking southbound on James Street. I stopped my vehicle, exited it, and then called out to the person, who stopped. As I came closer, I noticed he smelled heavily of cigarettes and marijuana. I loosened the buckle on my sidearm as a precaution. I asked him for his identification, and he refused. I asked him again, and he reached into his pocket. I pulled my sidearm and advised him to stop and remove his hand. When he did, I saw something in his hand that was silvery. I thought it was a firearm, so I discharged my weapon once, hitting him. He fell. When he did, I noticed that he had a pack of cigarettes in his hand, not a weapon.

Now suppose the victim filed a complaint against the officer, which read like this:

I was walking south down James Street after visiting a friend that lived on John Street when I heard someone yelling at me. I stopped. When I turned to face the person, I saw Officer Smith with his hand on his gun. I froze. He said something to me, and I didn't understand, so I was nervous. When I'm nervous, I like to smoke, so I reached for my cigarettes, which was in my pocket. Without warning, Officer Smith shot me.

Let's suppose there are no other witnesses.

The "blue code" doesn't exist precisely, but it is an implicit understanding that cops tell each other the truth. So, if you're a cop, you're probably going to buy Officer Smith's story over the victim's. From another perspective, the victim has no motive to lie because he didn't do anything wrong and he admitted to reaching for cigarettes.

But who would you believe? And why?

That's kind of how this shakes out in my head, at any level, for any occupation. Lawyers stick up for other lawyers, generally, even though we have mandatory reporting guidelines. Same with doctors. Nurses. All sorts of professions. So, I would say the "blue code" is, more often than not, a common, societal issue, where our empathy for one another blurs or objectivity.

But if I know another lawyer has done something wrong, not only do I have a duty to report but I would do so because fuck you how dare you make my profession look bad. I don't have time to deal with lawyers that I know have broken the law or ethical code. I have enough problems dealing with clients that lie to me.

[Arkandel]

@Ganymede Fair enough. I will also accept this counter-argument about cops vs everyone else; what they do is more dangerous than most professions.

To use my own paradigm from before, the worst thing that can happen to me is maybe if I fuck up changing the battery on a UPS it'll fall on my foot, or I'll delete something important and unrecoverable. It's pretty low risk to begin with and much of it can be proactively reduced with the right planning. A cop can die in a second no matter how they do their job.

It's reasonable to accept they get a great deal of leeway for how their job is conducted. Unlawful or not, protected by the constitution or not, grievance or not... if a police officer tells you to do something, you need to do it. Express your reservations and formally complain later, file charges, get the fucker fired if needed but dammit, do it.

How do y'all feel about officers being required to wear cameras while on duty? And being liable if they suddenly stop working at convenient times?

[ThatGuyThere]

@Ghost said in State of Things:

@Roz Look, just because I throw out some sarcasm or outline things in bold doesn't mean I'm yelling, nor does it mean that I'm upset in any way.

Except it kinda does bold means heavy emphasis, so while not exactly the text equivalent of yelling it would be at least the equivalent of raising ones voice.

[Rook]

@ThatGuyThere said in State of Things:

Except it kinda does bold means heavy emphasis, so while not exactly the text equivalent of yelling it would be at least the equivalent of raising ones voice.

I thought that ALL CAPS was yelling? I think bold is just meant to draw the eye to a key phrase in what someone is trying to get across.

[ThatGuyThere]

@Rook
I would say all caps is yelling yes, Bold would be raising voice with emphasis to me. though in this specific instance Ghost does have points where he both was in bold and all caps which is most definitely the text equivalent of yelling.

[Monogram]

Going back to the initial post of this thread(because I sorta glazed over everything else), I look at our society and, oddly, look at two things. The Fermi Paradox and the Singularity.

As reference to the former, not about aliens themselves(though I can wish I'll be alive when/if that day ever comes), but to the aspect of the Paradox called the Great Filter. Earth has already been through a series of these filters, according to Fermi and those who agree with the theory, but the reason it applies to the general Paradox in general is: why haven't we met anyone out there yet?

The idea is that these filters, enigmatic as they are, represent changes to a planet's overall state and society, whether by nature, cosmic events, the race's own actions, take your pick. In terms of humans, I tend ascribe to the latter of these. Some planets with life just don't make it past a filter, which is, in part explains why we haven't met anyone not from Earth. But this filter also ascribes to ourselves.

Basically, and while I wouldn't consider myself a pessimist, it may come off as such. I have strong reservations that we as a species will make it through the next barrier, the actions of the past couple of years is, to me, indicative to that. I don't doubt that nature will likely play a hand in it, but the biggest culprit I suspect is ourselves as whole. Not any singular person, just as a species.

Most futurists predict the next Filter will occur in the next fifty to two hundred years, give or take. And most consider the the Singularity will be apart of that. I don't know how much anyone else reads up on it, but there's been some slightly unsettling hints that we are getting closer and closer to artificial intelligence, and anyone in this particular field with any sense is saying that this is a really bad idea.

This isn't any kind of proclamation that 'the sky is falling', but looking at the slow degradation and regression of our culture as whole, and not to say it's anything new if you look back at the past three decades, but it doesn't give me exactly a lot of hope that we'll all magically find ourselves in a more cultured and evolved state.

Then again, I'm the same person that's always said that the only thing that's going to bring everyone together is either A. Being invaded by extraterrestrial threat or B. Simply knowing they exist. So... y'know, take with the biggest grain of salt you can find.

[Ganymede]

@Rook said in State of Things:

I want to find the happy middle ground. Except for over science. Businessmen and religious organization who are trying to push an anti-science agenda for their own profit or beliefs can fuck right off. Humanity will be worse off for the attempts of these people.

I find it more or less laughable, in a horrid way, that people believe Marx somehow invented socialism. Or that Marx and communists were the first anti-capitalists. Or that religious people cannot embrace science.

Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition.

A religious man said this.

Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.

A capitalist said this.

The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities.

This too.

A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation.

And this.

And that would be the fellow who wrote The Wealth of Nations.

You know, that bedrock that all those puerile Randian and foolish Austrian economists hail back to, as if they had any understanding of the social and political mores that existed in Smith's time.

So, it's sort of frustrating when "the bastions of free market capitalism" fail to understand that the "free market" only works where everyone gets rewarded for their labor.

And this makes me laugh.

[Rook]

Just for the record, Your Honor, I did not say those things. Someone Else did.

[Thenomain]

@Ganymede said in State of Things:

So, it's sort of frustrating when "the bastions of free market capitalism" fail to understand that the "free market" only works where everyone gets rewarded for their labor.

I laugh because the free market only works within a set of limitations.

@Ganymede said in State of Things:

Or that religious people cannot embrace science.

That's the beauty of the scientific method; it doesn't care who embraces it. In fact it works better if everyone is allowed to embrace it.

[ArmedCarp]

You guys are getting deep. I'm shooting for 2044. That'd be a good life.

[SG]

@Arkandel said in State of Things:

what they do is more dangerous than most professions.

This doesn't really meaningfully contribute to the thread, but everytime I see this being said, I'm reminded of this blog post from the globe and mail

[Arkandel]

@SG I don't see why it doesn't contribute, it's a fair point. I could be pedantic and point out I said "most professions" but the truth is I didn't do my research first.

Being a cop seems pretty dangerous but I guess that's comparing it with nerdfests like my own line of work.

[SG]

@Arkandel I look at the list, and, having worked in a couple of those categories, I wonder how much they're padding their stats by being drunk or extremely hung over at work.

[Rook]

Are you saying Canadians are drunks, @SG?