Another anecdote. Or data point. Take your pick.

The comments are uniformly negative on the police.

Glenn Reynolds posted this item on his site and has over 100 comments last I looked, and they're also uniformly negative.

So what? You might say. Well, I remember a young black stand up comedian, sometime in the 1980's doing a joke about the Los Angeles police--'BANG BANG BANG--FREEZE!" much like the audio suggests in the film, and it all got a laugh at the time, because well, if that was happening, it was happening to minorities in minority neighborhoods. 

The people commenting are basically middle class Americans. The sort that used to support the police. They're not, anymore.


Texan99 said...

They must have undergone some sensitivity training. They didn't shoot the dog.

Grim said...

It's a start.

Gallup does that 'support for institutions' poll every year. Support for police (though still a clear majority) has been dropping for about ten years. On the other hand, previous to that it had been rising for about ten years, so it's pretty much back to where it was a generation ago.

DL Sly said...


douglas said...

You know, Even though my view of Police has dimmed over time, I still take with a wary mind, the claim that we live in a police state. That's not to say I don't think things are being done which are wrong and troubling, but let's look at this event- I don't think they had any intention to do anything other than raid a drug lab. I think they were lazy in reconnaissance, unprepared and insufficiently trained, and put themselves into a position where something like this could happen. I think the shooting was probably a straight up tragedy on it's own, revealing many underlying problems that should be addressed. I also think the cover up- This one looks pretty clear to me- is the biggest problem. I relate it to the Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal. That there were bad priests is clear. That they did not represent the majority of priests, nor did the number of cases differ greatly from other positions of authority (other sects/religions, teachers, etc.) is equally clear (to anyone who looks at the numbers). The cover up was inexcusable, and most troubling to me. I don't pretend that evil will leave our midst anytime soon- there will be bad police officers, and bad priests, and for that matter, bad parents. They should be punished. That anyone would cover for them- that troubles me greatly.

Police officers in America today need to understand how lucky they've been historically to have the support of the people- as in most other countries, people mock and have little respect for police. In Hungary, the slang term for police officer translates as "Speed Bump". Those in law enforcement today need to ask themselves if they're willing to be seen like that, as that's where they're headed.

raven said...

When a respected institution covers up evil- what does that make them?
Take for example the recent court case where it was shown an FBI agent mistakenly marked the wrong box on a no fly list, and the Just Us department, KNOWING it was an error, fought for seven years and millions of dollar in legal fees to avoid admitting an error- TO AVOID ADMITTING AN ERROR! Reminds me of the Richard Jewel fiasco.
No matter what, no matter how egregious the error,the Feds will NEVER admit they might have made an error, or apologize for one. They would command a hundred times more respect if they had the simple human decency to say, "I am very sorry, Mr. Jones, we screwed this up and will strive to make sure it does not happen again. Here is a check for your door repair, Agent Buthurt has been terminated from Federal Employment".

Texan99 said...

Agreed. I understand that a cop's job is a hard, dangerous one, and that mistakes can be made. But the organization shows what's it's made of when it responds to an error in its ranks.