Who Are the Good Guys?

Kevin Williamson writes.

He doesn't mention Chicago, whose police department is infamously corrupt -- and whose culture, at least in South Chicago, is astonishingly deadly. The question he doesn't consider that probably needs to be asked is whether the corruption of the department is a product of the struggle with rampant gang violence, or a contributing factor to it. In other words, would a more scrupulously honest and law-abiding police department enable the gangs by being too restrained to stop them? Or would it prove to undercut the gangs, by improving trust between the police and the community in which the gangs operate?

8 comments:

raven said...

Once a certain level of violence is achieved by a gang, take the Mexican cartel's for example, the only way to suppress it is by corresponding methods, in spades. This will be done by a government, because no government trusts it's people to take care of the problems themselves. In any area distressed by attacks, gang or terrorist, where the people could benefit by having arms, the governments are first to deny them those arms, and last to protect them. examples abound-Chicago, Nigeria, Mexico, Vietnam, etc.


Our great time of relative criminal peace over the last few hundred years was purchased with a culture of respect for the law- and that respect was purchased with the rack, the gibbet and the stake. The lesson was learned, for a while, and we were fortunate enough, in this country, to reap the reward without having to pay the price.

Expecting any form of government to suppress this level of violence without devolving into a tyranny is foolish- and that may be exactly why the powers that be, seem to be inclined to bring that chaos here. It is not the problem, it is the excuse. What was that "crisis" bit again, Rahm?

Grim said...

Since that level of violence is both illegal and unconstitutional, if you're right it means that police corruption is a necessary feature of our society in these violent urban areas. We need them to be corrupt, because we need them to apply these levels of illegal violence to gang members in order to suppress them. Unless we change the law and Constitution to permit them, though, the police culture must -- at least in these urban areas -- foster a corruption, a culture of silence, and of unlawful physical violence.

Ymar Sakar said...

The British were working with Al Sadr in Basrah and the Shia areas of Iraq, to ensure Iranian death squads had freedom of access.

That's why those areas were said to be "peaceful", but later on, the sectarian issues went to the highest levels, even Iraq's PM, which caused the Sunni army units to fight at less than optimum morale, which allowed ISIL and AQ to take and hold territory.

Counter Insurgency Doctrine or COIN may seem of little impact immediately, but the consequences can always be felt later on. By those with eyes that can face the blinding light of truth.

As for Chicago, I suspect the union thugs and the police thugs are just two sides of the same coin. They're both laundering money to fund the Left's war machine. Some of it, cannot be funneled through official channels, that's where the police auctions and gang violence is for.

The British also thought that police corruption was necessary in Basrah and elsewhere. Necessary to fool the Americans into thinking nation building was succeeding at least. But it wasn't necessary. Ulterior agendas, never are.

Ymar Sakar said...

This is a great opportunity to see what private security companies do in Detroit, the land where police forces often times don't even exist.

The great utopia of anarchy that comes from the Left's Utopian totalitarianism perhaps.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=video+of+detroit+bodyguards&view=detail&mid=3163AD22A2C1A67843FE3163AD22A2C1A67843FE&FORM=VIRE1

That wasn't the clip I had in mind, but it'll do.

https://ymarsakar.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/when-frontiers-disappear-post-apocalyptic-detroit/

Just remembered, I had written a post about that video.

Tom said...

Our great time of relative criminal peace over the last few hundred years was purchased with a culture of respect for the law- and that respect was purchased with the rack, the gibbet and the stake.

I'm not sure that's true. I think it was purchased by parents, teachers, writers and philosophers who saw a better way to do things and taught their children that way. In the 1960s, we threw that away and intentionally substituted rebellion, disrespect for all authority, and we normalized criminal behavior through drugs.

Once a certain level of violence is achieved by a gang, take the Mexican cartel's for example, the only way to suppress it is by corresponding methods, in spades.

I don't know; I think there may be two ways in this case. One, drug legalization / surrender in the so-called "War on Drugs" would cut the financial legs out from under the cartels. I don't think they would go away, but the easy money would be over, I think.

Second, as you say, use the violence necessary by declaring a real war. State the truth, that the cartels represent a danger to the nations they operate in, get an AUMF from Congress, and turn it over the the COIN specialists and the military.

Tom said...

Hm. I think it was purchased by parents, teachers, writers and philosophers who saw a better way to do things and taught their children that way.

This sounds pretty pie-in-the-sky here.

What I mean is, if most parents raise their children to be law-abiding, productive citizens, you will have a mostly law-abiding, productive society. We did that for a while with Christian belief and a philosophy of liberty, but large parts of our society stopped doing that a couple of generations back. So here we are.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

HBD chick would say it was purchased over centuries by the Catholic Church forbidding cousin marriage, which for some reason was honored in Northern Europe after they converted, but nowhere else. This gradually expanded everyone's definition of who was a tribesman beyond the very restricted clan, eventually growing even unto nations (though never completely). Though Stephen Pinker does not give the same explanation, his Better Angels supports the theory from 1230AD - present. This change was both cultural and genetic, and was the foundation for the changes in laws and expectations in Northwest Europe. Because that's what we're talking about, even if we don't say so.

It may sound far-fetched, but if you read up on the Hajnal Line it provides some pretty compelling evidence that one area of the world led the others in establishing this increased comity - and most other areas don't seem to be able to pick it up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hajnal_line

Chicago is not abnormal, but the human default.

MikeD said...

In other words, would a more scrupulously honest and law-abiding police department enable the gangs by being too restrained to stop them? Or would it prove to undercut the gangs, by improving trust between the police and the community in which the gangs operate?

Well, here I go again...

If the only solution to this problem is for the police to become corrupt in order to stop the gang violence, then I submit the city is lost. Trading one set of criminal overlords for another is a losing proposition anyway. For regardless of which group is in power (the gangs or a corrupt police department) the average citizen suffers no less.

I do not know if a scrupulously honest and law-abiding police department would be more or less effective at fighting the gang violence. But I do know that the citizenry of Chicago deserves and indeed is owed a scrupulously honest and law-abiding police department. Because at the end of the day, they're the employer. If the police department doesn't answer to them, then it is a criminal organization that needs to be destroyed.