Officer Ellifritz got a call about a stolen bicycle:
While I was speaking with my prisoner during the arrest process, I recognized that most of you will never be in such a position to talk candidly with a thief (who also had past arrests for felonious assault, kidnapping, rape, and a host of other crimes). Since I get this “honor” quite regularly, I’m happy to share the what I learn with you all.
Our thief today is homeless. He’s 32 years old and overweight. He’s a regular consumer of crack cocaine. He has no job and no place to live. He sometimes stays at friends’ apartments, but his permanent address is a local homeless shelter. The sum total of his possessions consisted of a change of clothes, a broken phone, and less than $4 cash.
When I asked the man why he stole the bike, his comment was enlightening:
“I took it because I have the chance to stay at my friend’s place tonight instead of the shelter. My friend lives in (the next town over) and it would be about a four hour walk to get there. It rained all day yesterday and it looks like it’s going to rain some more today. I just didn’t want to spend four hours walking in the fucking rain and getting soaking wet again. I figured a bike would be faster.”
He continued by saying: “I knew it was wrong to steal the bike, but I just don’t care. I didn’t want to get wet no more. I saw an opportunity and I took it. I’d do the same thing all over again if I got the chance. Biking is just faster than walking.”
The guy wasn’t rude or trying to play the role of a badass. He was just describing the daily realities for someone who lives in a world very different from the one in which you and I reside.
He wasn’t mentally ill. He knew right from wrong. But he had absolutely no remorse about taking a bike from some girl who probably needs it as just badly as he did. The thought of what the victim would experience didn’t even register in his mind. He “saw an opportunity” and took it. He took a college girl’s only means of transportation, because he didn’t want to be inconvenienced by a long walk.
This is what most folks don’t understand about serious criminals. The fact that the victim of the crime would be affected in a negative manner is not even an afterthought. Your feelings and concerns mean absolutely NOTHING to the criminal. He doesn’t care if you live or die, let alone how “inconvenienced” you will be if he takes all of your stuff or beats you within an inch of your life. If you literally had ZERO concern about the well being of your neighbors and fellow humans, what kind of atrocities would you be capable of committing? That’s something that few people consider.
Does he expect us to be shocked at his lack of remorse? I’m not. It’s not all all unusual. There are lots of people like this in boardrooms and state houses, different only in level of ability.
Only the stupid ones and the unlucky ones get caught.
” If you literally had ZERO concern about the well being of your neighbors and fellow humans, what kind of atrocities would you be capable of committing? That’s something that few people consider.”
Another thing worth considering for those of the community that still retain their illusions about the innate goodness of their fellow man would be the question of “If you only follow the rules because you’ve worked out that you need to do so in order to “fit in” with the normies and civil society, what happens when those normies and their civil society self-destruct around you, removing the reason and necessity to follow those rules…?”
There are a lot more “high-functioning sociopaths” out there than society knows about, or wants to believe possible. A lot of those types have bought into “da rules” because it’s easier to go along with them than not.
Now, remove those rules, and piss those HFS types off. Consider what happens next, when they decide “F-it, I’m gonna do as I like…”.
I would also submit to you that there is a higher percentage of these types present here in the US than would otherwise be expected, because our society attracted them, and allowed them to “blend in” and flourish. The idiot left-wing types do not account for these people in their calculations, and that’s going to be an interesting factor in years to come. You want to play anarchist? You might want to consider who else would enjoy those conditions, and what they might do under them.
The Portland bedlamites who decide to take their fun and games out into the rural countryside of Oregon are probably going to find out the hard way. I suspect that some of them already have.
Given the composition of the rioters and the not so tacit support from the Democrats it is obvious the sociopaths are in control on the left.
Property is, of course, theft.
…”Another thing worth considering for those of the community that still retain their illusions about the innate goodness of their fellow man would be the question of “If you only follow the rules because you’ve worked out that you need to do so in order to “fit in” with the normies and civil society, what happens when those normies and their civil society self-destruct around you, removing the reason and necessity to follow those rules…?”
I made a similar observation in a conversation not long ago with regard to this whole “de-fund the police” thing. There is a reason we invented “civil society”, cops and so on in the first place. We gave up things like dueling, local neighbourhood gangs, vigilance committees, lynch mobs, and Albanian style multi-generation blood feuds because they produced many, many negative outcomes.
In exchange we were supposed to get fair and impartial law and order, and laws and outcomes that mostly matched the cultural norms of the majority. Now these can change (general social attitudes to corporal and capital punishment for example), but generally, the majority need to feel that the system is fair and appropriate.
Now if that part of the bargain is not kept, as is happening now with politicized courts, selective prosecutions, “catch and release” of rioters etc. etc., many will go back to the old ways, and we really don’t want to go back to Hatfield-McCoy, but if we do, then we do, with the attendant warlordism, “he who can, may”, and the golden rule of history, (“He who has the gold makes the rules, and he who has the guns gets the gold”).
As I pointed out to the “kumbaya anarchist” I was debating the issue with, the outcome they expect will not be what they get. If there are no police anymore, what incentive do I have to obey magazine capacity restrictions or any other gun law? If I am dispensing my own “justice”, then trespassing on my property or vandalism can carry the death penalty should I so choose, and with no cops to investigate. I don’t even have to dispose of the body very carefully, just in the ditch down the road enough to keep the smell from being inconvenient. (I think that comment about the smell shocked them the most). I don’t want to go there, but if we do, I am way more equipped to survive such an environment than my interlocutor is.
“If I am dispensing my own “justice”, then trespassing on my property or vandalism can carry the death penalty should I so choose…”
See?
Paul from Canada says,”…I made a similar observation in a conversation not long ago with regard to this whole “de-fund the police” thing. There is a reason we invented “civil society”, cops and so on in the first place. We gave up things like dueling, local neighbourhood gangs, vigilance committees, lynch mobs, and Albanian style multi-generation blood feuds because they produced many, many negative outcomes.
In exchange we were supposed to get fair and impartial law and order…”
Great comment and oh so true.
Perhaps it’s different in Canada, but in America, “the police” was invented to let recently-immigrated Irish Catholics humble the vile nativist Anglo-Germanic Protestant stock.
One hundred to one hundred and fifty years later, their descendants still dominate the police departments of many major cities.
Why do you think it is that white cops look so similar?
RLVC,
Funny you should mention the Irish. In Toronto it was slightly different. There were large numbers of Irish in the police and other government departments, but they were all rabid Orangemen. I think your example is more applicable to specific major cities, where I am speaking more generally.
An anecdote that illustrates what I meant about the trade of blood feuds etc. for police and civil society, is related by the anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon.
He is (in)famous for his study of the Yanomamo(sp?), the so called “fierce people”. Alleged to be the most violent society in the world. An indigenous tribe that lived in South America, mostly in Venezuela. When he studied them in the late ’70s, they had only fairly recently come into contact with modern civilization and retained pretty much all of their traditional culture including blood feuds, “wife stealing” etc.
At the time, the Venezuelan government was attempting to manage contact with them, and provide some modicum of government services. One of these was the training of village paramedics. The idea being to have someone from each village trained in basic sanitation and preventative medicine, capable of administering vaccinations and so on.
Chagnon relates the reaction of one young tribesman who went on this training course. He didn’t have much to say about the course, but was extremely excited about one of the things he saw in the capital.
What he said on arrival back at the village went something like this:
“Guys, guys! In Caracas they have this thing called a police. I’m not sure exactly how all the details work, but they have this police. If someone does you wrong, instead of starting a feud, these police come. They ask questions to find out who did wrong, and then just take them away. I’m not sure what they do with them, but they are not your tribe or his tribe and no feuds start. We need something like that!”
@Paul,
Fascinating, isn’t it, how our oh-so-smart elites want to do away with that same institution without thought to the various and sundry implications of Chesterton’s Fence?
They are not going to like what “defunding the police” looks like, once society works through the implications. We’re in for a couple of rough decades before something workable shakes out.
However, as I’ve told many of my cop friends, either you rein in the abuses, or you’re going to be replaced by something else. There is nothing mandating that the social function area now filled by police as we know them has to remain filled by them.
The other thing I told them was that everything would be as it was, until one day they went into work and found that it wasn’t. This has taken place, and one of the guys I know who went to work in Portland recently dropped me a line to say “You were right…”.
I’m not as happy at that acknowledgment as I might be, but there you go.
Roger, Paul.
The time to think about what will replace X is before you get rid of X, not after.
Harry is exactly right.
One of the problems with the “kumbaya anarchists” as I call them, is that just like communists, they believe in the perfectibility of man, or even that he is already perfect but warped my “society”. If we did away with police and the attendant brutality, humans would respond with willing cooperation, informal mediation etc. etc.
What they forget, or never knew, is that they are for the most part, right, but only for the most part. Most people are altruistic, cooperative, and law abiding, and if the world were populated only by them, “intervention teams”, and “social workers” might be able to replace police. But police exist and carry weapons and use force, because there is a minority of people who are simply bad, and it is because of them that we need police.
As Kirk pointed out earlier, the sociopath cooperates and plays along because it suits him at the moment, and there are direct benefits to him.
Look at all the “game theory” studies, and you will find the conclusion that cooperation and altruism is the best course, because there are tangible mutual benefits over the long run. Cheating gets a short term advantage, but very quickly, if you cheat too much, nobody will cooperate with you and cheating will become universal, and everyone looses overall.
The other thing keeping the sociopath in line is that if he steps too far over it, the power of the state, or community, will come down on him.
However, give him a situation where the normal rules break down, (like a civil war), and all bets are off.
Most of us obey the law and the unwritten “civil society rules” without really thinking about it. We may speed a bit on the highway and not sort our recyclables properly, but that is about it. The dirty little secret is that civilization and society functions mostly by voluntary compliance and tacit agreement. There are not enough cops, inspectors, IRS auditors etc. to actually enforce the rules if everyone decided to break them.
Civilization/civil society works, because the need to use force is comparatively rare, but when it is necessary, it is usually VERY necessary.
Kirk,
Absolutely right. When I was a kid, cops were just cops, Pretty much everything was done by a smartly uniformed street cop, especially warrant serving.
Back then, an arrest warrant was served by a pair of uniforms knocking on the door. Unless the person sought was extremely dangerous, the SWAT team was never involved. Today it is always the SWAT team or a raid team of plainclothes in raid jackets, maximum intimidation, flash bangs etc.
Recall the infamous case where a man and his kids had their door kicked in by a SWAT team because they were looking for his ex, for of all things, student loan fraud.
The scary thing, is that as you point out, the “normies” are starting to get fed up. Sure, everyone disliked the cops when one was behind you when you drove, or worse, pulled you over, but we recognized the need for them, and held them in a certain respect. Not anymore. And they have no one to blame but themselves.
The “thin blue line”, referring to citizens as “civilians”, the over militarization, the name change from “peace officer” to “law enforcement”, are all biting them now because they do not resemble the police we used to know who were an integral part of the community. Now they are behaving more like an occupying army, and we have started to resent it. They are our servants, not our masters
Further to my previous comment, when Robert Peel was forming what became the first professional police force, he had to contend with a public that was very resistant. Britain at the time (hard to believe now), was extremely libertarian.
When selecting a uniform, he did some interesting things. The tunic was a tail coat similar to that worn by servants, but the headgear was a top hat, not usually worn by servants, but rather by the rich and powerful. The intent was to give a sense of authority, but not too much.
I doubt that very many cops today know about the Peelian Principles, let along know what they are. Read them, and then contrast the expected bhavior to the way our cops behave.
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
‘Peel’s Principles are my Bible. I keep a copy in my wallet’, said Bratton, successful cop in LA and NY. Every cop gets Peel’s Principles in the police academy. The good ones remember.
The police are literally flying their own flag.