- Banned
- #181
kizzy821
VIP Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5,327
- Reaction score
- 10,664
Offline
Whenever something like this happens, the cop who did the killing is the "bad cop." The ones who watched and didn't intervene, seemingly are grouped in with the "good cops" who don't say anything when the bad cops act out.
We assume the act of NOT using excessive force/killing someone makes them a good cop. But what if there are only a few good cops, the way some assume there are only a few bad apples?
What if the police force mimics society in that the majority of people are just observers. Just... there. Existing. Not really doing anything in particular to assert themselves as good or bad. Not killing a patient doesn't automatically make you a good doctor. Not getting into a wreck doesn't make you a good driver. Not cheating on your spouse doesn't make you a good husband or wife.
When most recordable events occur, people are most likely standing there watching (or have walked away). If it's a fight or something like that, we don't assume the fighters are the bad guys while simultaneously classifying the onlookers as the good guys, do we?
So why do we assume the cops who watch or have knowledge of these types of events are the (silent) GOOD cops? And I know a lot of people believe the cops who don't say anything are just as complicit as the cops who committed the crimes, but I don't know why we tend to think they're silent AND good-ish.
It could just be semantics on my part, but I think a lot of frustrations arise from us assuming there are enough officers who don't condone this type of behavior and they just aren't speaking up. I think we're wrong in that assumption. As backwards as it sounds, I think we give the "good" cops too much credit.
We assume the act of NOT using excessive force/killing someone makes them a good cop. But what if there are only a few good cops, the way some assume there are only a few bad apples?
What if the police force mimics society in that the majority of people are just observers. Just... there. Existing. Not really doing anything in particular to assert themselves as good or bad. Not killing a patient doesn't automatically make you a good doctor. Not getting into a wreck doesn't make you a good driver. Not cheating on your spouse doesn't make you a good husband or wife.
When most recordable events occur, people are most likely standing there watching (or have walked away). If it's a fight or something like that, we don't assume the fighters are the bad guys while simultaneously classifying the onlookers as the good guys, do we?
So why do we assume the cops who watch or have knowledge of these types of events are the (silent) GOOD cops? And I know a lot of people believe the cops who don't say anything are just as complicit as the cops who committed the crimes, but I don't know why we tend to think they're silent AND good-ish.
It could just be semantics on my part, but I think a lot of frustrations arise from us assuming there are enough officers who don't condone this type of behavior and they just aren't speaking up. I think we're wrong in that assumption. As backwards as it sounds, I think we give the "good" cops too much credit.