Ferguson, Missouri, in unrest after shooting of unarmed teenager

[Oryx]

This is an unfair assumption. I didn't say you didn't read it multiple times.

Your post was clearly assuming that I didn't read it enough, which is what I responded to. I would also appreciate if you would respond to points instead of making unrelated arguments.

 

[LRB]

I find that comment interesting because it talks about the culture shaping the citizens but ignores entirely that culture also shapes police officers. So citizens are violent and aggressive and that must be why police officers react the way they do, not because police officers are also citizens and therefore have just the same chance to be violent or aggressive, if not more since they actively chose a profession where they have to regularly get into violent confrontations?

That's not an accurate reading of the post; it doesn't "ignore entirely that culture also shapes police officers". One of the main points of the post is that neither police officers nor citizens are exempt from culture's impact. After the poster's description of American culture, he states "Any US officer grew up in this culture" in an effort to show that they're far from immune from its influence, and he even says that the difference in the behaviour of German and American police officers is the result of having grown up in "different societies". If that's not enough, the poster even concludes that "Everyone is shaped by their environment and the culture and society they grow up in", which, surprise! - includes police officers.

So citizens are violent and aggressive and that must be why police officers react the way they do, not because police officers are also citizens and therefore have just the same chance to be violent or aggressive, if not more since they actively chose a profession where they have to regularly get into violent confrontations?

That's an unfair portrayal of the poster's argument. Sure, he argues that American society has the "Wild West spirit", that citizens are more prone to support vigilante justice, and that guns are more freely available, and that yes, all these factors explain why American police officers are quicker to pull the trigger than say, German ones. But these factors are not the only factors in police behaviour, and they by no means entail that American police officers are exempt from cultural influence. You seem to think that the poster is claiming that violent and aggressive citizens are the only cause of increased police aggression, when in fact the poster actually makes repeated references to how the behaviour of police officers is a function not only of increased citizen aggression but also cultural influence. Violent and aggressive citizens causing police officers to "react the way they do" is not mutually exclusive with what you say in the latter part of your argument, i.e. police officers being "citizens and therefore [having] just the same chance to be violent or aggressive".

The comment says US cops "know about" this culture, not that they participate in it. That entire paragraph was not about how police are part of the culture, but about how the culture is threatening them.

Let's discuss this particular paragraph in the post, which I think is the source of some of your qualms:

"Every US cop knows about this culture of violence, they all know about the inherent distrust of the government. They all know that the threat to their life a real one. You join the Academy and suddenly that threat seems even more real. You are more aware of stories like those officers getting shot in the head while eating lunch. You watch the video of Deputy Dinkheller dying a lonely death behind his patrol car because he hesitated instead of shooting. Your brothers are getting killed out there, every week it seems. It could be you, next time."

Nowhere in this paragraph does it say that the police officer's knowledge of this culture of violence precludes them from participating in it. There is no reference in this paragraph or the other paragraphs supporting the claims you've made. If you think they're true, please offer some arguments in favour for them. I don't see why your knowledge of a culture should prevent you from participating in it, and I've already made clear above in my first paragraph that the poster stated many times that police officers are just as subject to cultural influence as citizens are.

It then talks about the willingness of a citizen to kill, never mentioning the willingness of a police officer to kill except as "their killing is justifiable because citizens are so violent".

Actually, the post does make reference to the willingness of a police officer to kill.

"In Germany, if I was searching for someone who I was told had a gun and I'd find someone matching the description and he started reaching in his waistband, I wouldn't shoot him. I'd wait until I actually saw the gun. Simply because the chance that he actually has a real gun is so, so low. If I was an officer in the US and I had grown up there, that guy'd be dead as soon as he reached."

And no, it doesn't follow up with a statement that "their killing is justifiable because citizens are so violent". It never comes close to even trying to justify these killings, which leads me to my next point.

Literally the whole point of the comment was to justify why police shoot American citizens.

The main point of the post was not to "justify why police shoot American citizens". It's not meant to excuse the behaviour of American cops; rather, it's meant to explain their behaviour. Nowhere in the post did the author say "and this increased citizen aggression is why it's OK for American cops to shoot citizens!", nor did he even come close to suggesting that the current state of affairs in American society regarding police interactions vis-à-vis citizens is desirable or even justifiable. The post is an explanation, not a justification. Certainly, he says "I'm sure most of you American citizens would react exactly the same in their [police officers] position" but this statement is not close to being a justification for their actions, nor is it even being offered as one. Explaining some of the reasons for increased police aggression in the US is not the same as defending it, which I think is a key distinction you've failed to make in reading the post.

 

[Oryx]

That's not an accurate reading of the post; it doesn't "ignore entirely that culture also shapes police officers". One of the main points of the post is that neither police officers nor citizens are exempt from culture's impact. After the poster's description of American culture, he states "Any US officer grew up in this culture" in an effort to show that they're far from immune from its influence, and he even says that the difference in the behaviour of German and American police officers is the result of having grown up in "different societies". If that's not enough, the poster even concludes that "Everyone is shaped by their environment and the culture and society they grow up in", which, surprise! - includes police officers.

...


Actually, the post does make reference to the willingness of a police officer to kill.

"In Germany, if I was searching for someone who I was told had a gun and I'd find someone matching the description and he started reaching in his waistband, I wouldn't shoot him. I'd wait until I actually saw the gun. Simply because the chance that he actually has a real gun is so, so low. If I was an officer in the US and I had grown up there, that guy'd be dead as soon as he reached."

And no, it doesn't follow up with a statement that "their killing is justifiable because citizens are so violent". It never comes close to even trying to justify these killings, which leads me to my next point.

(I'm combining two parts of your comment because you're talking about the same paragraph here) I really don't understand how you can come to the reading you're trying to pull out of that. He is saying that if he was in Germany as a German, he would wait to see a gun, not because he's less aggressive, but because the German is unlikely to have a gun. Thus, through the power of reading, we can deduce that the reason he would be faster to shoot in America is not due to his aggressiveness, but due to the fact that the citizen is more likely to have a gun. This makes sense given the entire rest of the comment is about how aggressive citizens are and how at risk police officers are.

Let's discuss this particular paragraph in the post, which I think is the source of some of your qualms:

"Every US cop knows about this culture of violence, they all know about the inherent distrust of the government. They all know that the threat to their life a real one. You join the Academy and suddenly that threat seems even more real. You are more aware of stories like those officers getting shot in the head while eating lunch. You watch the video of Deputy Dinkheller dying a lonely death behind his patrol car because he hesitated instead of shooting. Your brothers are getting killed out there, every week it seems. It could be you, next time."

Nowhere in this paragraph does it say that the police officer's knowledge of this culture of violence precludes them from participating in it. There is no reference in this paragraph or the other paragraphs supporting the claims you've made. If you think they're true, please offer some arguments in favour for them. I don't see why your knowledge of a culture should prevent you from participating in it, and I've already made clear above in my first paragraph that the poster stated many times that police officers are just as subject to cultural influence as citizens are.

If I say "I hate black people because they're all violent thugs", and then you say "well then, you are a racist", someone defending me can use your logic to say "Well she didn't say 'I'm a racist' so you can't support that!" When an entire comment is continually coming back to how aggressive and vigilante the citizens are, how at risk the police officers are, and how their willingness to shoot is based not on their own aggressiveness, but on the likelihood that the citizen will have a gun, the meaning is clear, even if you try to take quotes out of context and twist them to mean something different and argue that he didn't say one quote you decided is the only way he can express his meaning so therefore he must not mean that.

The main point of the post was not to "justify why police shoot American citizens". It's not meant to excuse the behaviour of American cops; rather, it's meant to explain their behaviour. Nowhere in the post did the author say "and this increased citizen aggression is why it's OK for American cops to shoot citizens!", nor did he even come close to suggesting that the current state of affairs in American society regarding police interactions vis-à-vis citizens is desirable or even justifiable. The post is an explanation, not a justification. Certainly, he says "I'm sure most of you American citizens would react exactly the same in their [police officers] position" but this statement is not close to being a justification for their actions, nor is it even being offered as one. Explaining some of the reasons for increased police aggression in the US is not the same as defending it, which I think is a key distinction you've failed to make in reading the post.

The sentence you so blithely dismiss is actually very, very important. That is justification in its clearest form - that these people who think of themselves are generally non-violent people will still shoot just as many people if they were a cop, because they're so scared for their lives and live in such an aggressive country. When your entire "explanation" is blaming the citizens, blaming everyone else, and not a word on how police officers contribute to this issue, then you are excusing them. There is not limited comment space; he intentionally chose to frame the issue as "everyone would react the same way because it's not that the police officers are bad, it's that they're scared just like you would be!" He could have mentioned the fact that choosing to be a police officer in a country that's inherently aggressive is choosing to take a job where you use violence to exert authority over people, attracting people that enjoy using violence to exert authority over people. He could have mentioned that America pulls its police officers from high school dropouts that can't get into college and don't have any other path in life, creating a police force of undereducated people. He could have even changed what he was saying about police officers more likely to shoot here and mention the fact that it has to do with more than their fear of dying, that police officers here are more likely to think they have a right to use any kind of violence as long as the person committed any kind of crime (see the article recently published where a cop said "if you don't want to get shot, do what I say"). But he didn't. Instead he talked about how scared police are, how the culture influences citizens which causes police officers to be more at risk and therefore more likely to shoot. He does backbends to portray police officers as terrified of citizens without an ounce of effort to put any kind of blame on them, and that's a conscious choice on his part. If he wanted to, he could have changed that portrayal, and he chose not to, thus I am going to judge him both on what he chose to write and what he chose not to write.