there is no need to be insulting, the question is very simple and straight forward:
do you believe it is right for one individual to use threat of force to take the justly acquired property of another individual?
-
We are a multilingual website again. Read the notice about this.
-
Understand AI use at MyPTSD: all AI use is explained in our AI help page. AI use is by choice here. It exists if you want it, but does nothing unless you choose to use it.
Why Are People Drawn To Be Law Enforcement Officers?
- Post starter Justmehere
- Start date
- Status
there is no need to be insulting, the question is very simple and straight forward:
do you believe it is right for one individual to use threat of force to take the justly acquired property of another individual?
I'm taking it step by step looking at the simplest interactions between individuals first.
only individuals think and only individuals act, and individuals are responsible for their own actions. once the interactions and principles are clear, it is easy to increase the scale to look at groups of individuals.
only individuals think and only individuals act, and individuals are responsible for their own actions. once the interactions and principles are clear, it is easy to increase the scale to look at groups of individuals.
joeylittle
Sponsor
@Anarchy, I'm going to cut through and state your point as I understand it with regard to relevance to the thread:
You fundamentally believe the authority over others that police are given (by virtue of the law) is wrong and no different from someone giving a robber legal permission to rob (which is a straw man argument and doesn't support your opinion well)
You therefore believe that people who go into law enforcement are people who actually want to (in a way) BREAK the law, because you think the authority they are given isn't legal.
Essentially you are saying the same as "they go into law enforcement because they are bullies". You're trying a socio-political argument that is frustrating to readers, myself included.
Sometimes it's ok to be direct, I think.
Let's all stay on topic. Thanks.
You fundamentally believe the authority over others that police are given (by virtue of the law) is wrong and no different from someone giving a robber legal permission to rob (which is a straw man argument and doesn't support your opinion well)
You therefore believe that people who go into law enforcement are people who actually want to (in a way) BREAK the law, because you think the authority they are given isn't legal.
Essentially you are saying the same as "they go into law enforcement because they are bullies". You're trying a socio-political argument that is frustrating to readers, myself included.
Sometimes it's ok to be direct, I think.
Let's all stay on topic. Thanks.
@joeylittle
What I am saying is:
that the basic assumptions on which state sector policing is founded, logically lead to the problems which we are seeing.
That the techniques of institutional analysis are easy to learn, but they are neither widely known nor applied,
and, that if more people understood the institutional analysis, then very few good people would end up joining up, all idealistic and innevitably coming out again, disillusioned, hurt or corrupted by their time in the state sector police. They would realize that the problems cannot be blamed on "a few bad apples" and cured by reforms, the problems are inherrent.
What the subsequent replies consist of, are attempts to explain. Particularly to explain that calling an abusive action (in this case, of one individual stealing from another) by another name does not change its nature.
I think we all know about Sockholm Syndrome and victims becoming bonded to abusers and their gaslighting.
We can all of us, find ourselves in an abusive relationship.
Seeing the abuse for what it is, is never an easy nor a comfortable process, but that difficulty in cognition does not mean that it isn't abuse.
_____________________________________________
addition;
the state sector cops are not the only show in town, far from it, approx 3/4 of those who work full time to protect people and property, do so on the open market. A good example is entrepreneur Dale Brown and his very different approach to providing protection from criminal activities the FDA
What I am saying is:
that the basic assumptions on which state sector policing is founded, logically lead to the problems which we are seeing.
That the techniques of institutional analysis are easy to learn, but they are neither widely known nor applied,
and, that if more people understood the institutional analysis, then very few good people would end up joining up, all idealistic and innevitably coming out again, disillusioned, hurt or corrupted by their time in the state sector police. They would realize that the problems cannot be blamed on "a few bad apples" and cured by reforms, the problems are inherrent.
What the subsequent replies consist of, are attempts to explain. Particularly to explain that calling an abusive action (in this case, of one individual stealing from another) by another name does not change its nature.
I think we all know about Sockholm Syndrome and victims becoming bonded to abusers and their gaslighting.
We can all of us, find ourselves in an abusive relationship.
Seeing the abuse for what it is, is never an easy nor a comfortable process, but that difficulty in cognition does not mean that it isn't abuse.
_____________________________________________
addition;
the state sector cops are not the only show in town, far from it, approx 3/4 of those who work full time to protect people and property, do so on the open market. A good example is entrepreneur Dale Brown and his very different approach to providing protection from criminal activities the FDA
Last edited:
joeylittle
Sponsor
Ok, @Anarchy - I understand that. I think that topic in any more depth is deserving of its own thread - since you are really calling into question the very legitimacy of a police force.
in regards to the thread topic - what makes people join up - your answer is, "people who have been tricked or deluded into believing that it is possible to do good within a state-sponsored law enforcement system".
You then offer a PS about the private sector being just as bad.
I really appreciate you summing yourself up as clearly as you did, above.
Side convo over, yeah? Back to topic. If you are inspired to start a discussion on the legitimacy of policing, I'd say start a new thread - it's a big topic and will swamp this thread. That's a suggestion offered in my staff capacity.
in regards to the thread topic - what makes people join up - your answer is, "people who have been tricked or deluded into believing that it is possible to do good within a state-sponsored law enforcement system".
You then offer a PS about the private sector being just as bad.
I really appreciate you summing yourself up as clearly as you did, above.
Side convo over, yeah? Back to topic. If you are inspired to start a discussion on the legitimacy of policing, I'd say start a new thread - it's a big topic and will swamp this thread. That's a suggestion offered in my staff capacity.
with pleasure
marylouise
Silver Member
In some communities, becoming a cop - or a fireperson, or corrections officer - is a straightforward means to a respectable, unionized, well-paying job in which a person can expect an early retirement and a large pension. These options may follow some time in the military, which is seen as relevant experience. You don't need any college for them. That was true where I'm from. I grew up around whole families of cops or firemen. Traditionally, in the U.S., it was a good job for immigrants who were shut out of other options, and historically cops were often Irish. Of course, the reason behind the good pay and benefits and especially the enticing pensions is that these jobs are dangerous and rates of disability, suicide, and addiction in them are high (many don't even make it to their pension). If a young person has other (better) options, s/he probably is not going to become a cop.
Actuarial data on injuries and fatalities per man hour worked, show that policing in the US only occasionally (on a bad year) makes it into the top ten most dangerous employment categories.
It's roughly on a par with utilities work, and comes in way behind the likes of construction, agriculture, horticulture, forrestry and commercial fishing, mines and quarries, truck driving etc.
I know that it is neither a consolation to those who do get hurt, nor are the figures strictly complete, as I very much doubt that they include psychological injury or the downstream biological consequences of those psychological injuries.
- Post starter
- #34
Justmehere
Sponsor
@Anarchy - I believe you may be referring to information like here: [DLMURL]http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-top-10-dangerous-jobs-country-tanks/[/DLMURL] It lists the top jobs for fatalities. While the article itself is very biased, it does show a line of thinking similar to yours. I did check the data on that site with other more reliable sources, and they and you are correct that police officers are not amount the 10 ten professions for people killed on the job.
However, that's not the full picture as to what makes a job dangerous or not. Police daily live with the THREAT of harm against them. As we know, just threat of life threatening harm can and does take a serious toll on people and can lead to development of PTSD. Police don't die as often as others because they constantly have to protect against it and they are often successful. The goal o police is at least theoretically about increasing safety in communities. The goal of fishermen is to catch fish. Not to stay safe. So it makes sense that more fishermen would die from those jobs.
But it doesn't mean being a police officer is less dangerous. @Anarchy, you mentioned that the actuarial data doesn't include psychological injury or the downstream biological consequences of those psychological injuries - and you are right o
So, let's look at one type of psychological injury: PTSD.
Various studies show that 20--44% of police officers have PTSD. They also have high rates of suicide. "Data showed that 23 percent of male and 25 percent of female officers reported more suicidal thoughts than the general population (13.5 percent). In a previous study, suicide rates were three times higher in police than in other municipal workers, Violanti found. ([DLMURL]http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2012/02/28/stress%e2%80%a6no-problem-think-again/#sthash.VVBzqs3H.dpuf[/DLMURL]) That study goes on to talk about how high the cortisol levels (stress hormones) are for officers.
Corrections Officers experience PTSD even more than other law enforcement. "According to the U.S. Department of Justice's Programs Diagnostic Center, correction officers have a much higher rate of suicide than those in other occupations; a large percentage of correction officers experience some level of post traumatic stress disorder during their careers; and a correction officer, on average, will not live to see a 59th birthday." (From: Link Removed, More info: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/04/31_percent_of_correctional_officers_have_ptsd/)
Yes, you read that correctly, being a corrections officer knocks at least 15 years off life expectancy. That makes for a dangerous job.
"Suicide epidemic hits corrections officers. In a 2011 survey of 3, 599 corrections officers, researchers found that 44 percent experienced some form of post traumatic stress disorder, while 27% "met the criteria for full PTSD" (From: http://www.correctionsone.com/offic...2-Suicide-epidemic-hits-corrections-officers/)
Only 3-5% of the general population develops PTSD. Law enforcement develops PTSD 10 x more than the general population.
It is estimated that 20% of vets returning from Iraq have PTSD. The police force is developing PTSD at a much higher rate than even war vets.
If your claim that the job is as safe as farming is accurate, then why are officers ending up with PTSD more often than war vets? Yes, farmers die more often than police officers. But that's not because the job itself is so much more dangerous than being a police officer. It's more about what the police do to increase physical safety. Not much is done (that I have found) among law enforcement to increase psychological safety. It is also a culture of needing to be tough and never admitting weakness - why? Because many on the job believe this would lead to more danger. Denial is a defense mechanisms, and defense mechanism protect against threats. So if a job has tons of people using lots of defense mechanisms - this suggests there might be a lack of safety in the job. (Not always the case, but often is.)
I have seen the inside of a jail. It was hard just to walk through. The level of pain and stress was palpable. There is real on-the-job-danger. But still, so many people become police officers. I am learning about many of the reasons why. Sure, some do it for power and control, to boost their ego, etc. Many others go into it to protect and serve communities. Some do it because it's the best job they can find in their community.
However, that's not the full picture as to what makes a job dangerous or not. Police daily live with the THREAT of harm against them. As we know, just threat of life threatening harm can and does take a serious toll on people and can lead to development of PTSD. Police don't die as often as others because they constantly have to protect against it and they are often successful. The goal o police is at least theoretically about increasing safety in communities. The goal of fishermen is to catch fish. Not to stay safe. So it makes sense that more fishermen would die from those jobs.
But it doesn't mean being a police officer is less dangerous. @Anarchy, you mentioned that the actuarial data doesn't include psychological injury or the downstream biological consequences of those psychological injuries - and you are right o
So, let's look at one type of psychological injury: PTSD.
Various studies show that 20--44% of police officers have PTSD. They also have high rates of suicide. "Data showed that 23 percent of male and 25 percent of female officers reported more suicidal thoughts than the general population (13.5 percent). In a previous study, suicide rates were three times higher in police than in other municipal workers, Violanti found. ([DLMURL]http://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/2012/02/28/stress%e2%80%a6no-problem-think-again/#sthash.VVBzqs3H.dpuf[/DLMURL]) That study goes on to talk about how high the cortisol levels (stress hormones) are for officers.
Corrections Officers experience PTSD even more than other law enforcement. "According to the U.S. Department of Justice's Programs Diagnostic Center, correction officers have a much higher rate of suicide than those in other occupations; a large percentage of correction officers experience some level of post traumatic stress disorder during their careers; and a correction officer, on average, will not live to see a 59th birthday." (From: Link Removed, More info: http://www.salon.com/2012/12/04/31_percent_of_correctional_officers_have_ptsd/)
Yes, you read that correctly, being a corrections officer knocks at least 15 years off life expectancy. That makes for a dangerous job.
"Suicide epidemic hits corrections officers. In a 2011 survey of 3, 599 corrections officers, researchers found that 44 percent experienced some form of post traumatic stress disorder, while 27% "met the criteria for full PTSD" (From: http://www.correctionsone.com/offic...2-Suicide-epidemic-hits-corrections-officers/)
Only 3-5% of the general population develops PTSD. Law enforcement develops PTSD 10 x more than the general population.
It is estimated that 20% of vets returning from Iraq have PTSD. The police force is developing PTSD at a much higher rate than even war vets.
If your claim that the job is as safe as farming is accurate, then why are officers ending up with PTSD more often than war vets? Yes, farmers die more often than police officers. But that's not because the job itself is so much more dangerous than being a police officer. It's more about what the police do to increase physical safety. Not much is done (that I have found) among law enforcement to increase psychological safety. It is also a culture of needing to be tough and never admitting weakness - why? Because many on the job believe this would lead to more danger. Denial is a defense mechanisms, and defense mechanism protect against threats. So if a job has tons of people using lots of defense mechanisms - this suggests there might be a lack of safety in the job. (Not always the case, but often is.)
I have seen the inside of a jail. It was hard just to walk through. The level of pain and stress was palpable. There is real on-the-job-danger. But still, so many people become police officers. I am learning about many of the reasons why. Sure, some do it for power and control, to boost their ego, etc. Many others go into it to protect and serve communities. Some do it because it's the best job they can find in their community.
@Justmehere, I get the figures for the united state from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It's a subject that I've been studying on and off for around 10 years now. I actually started out pro the state sector police, that pro police prejudice didn't last for long after I began to see the exact same problems appearing time and again in multiple jurisdictions, and it certainly didn't survive my experiences in various parts of Africa, where the true nature of what is going on is less well concealed. Whether it's the London Metropolitan police, the Irish Garda Siochana in Donegal, or Hollywood, the same incentives and oportunities result in the same crap.
The use of violence by American police has very little to do with threat that they face, and a lot to do with the impunity they enjoy. a case in point would be to compare American police use of violence rates with those of other first world countries. I'm not suggesting that the other countries are "good", but the rates are way lower than America's.
While you were checking out figures, did you also see the estimates that the wives and girlfriends of American state sector police, suffer around twice the national average rate of domestic violence - and can expect that experience to be hushed up by their abuser's uniformed buddies?
whistleblowing about corruption, malpractice and downright criminality, has an unfortunate habit of resulting in the whistleblower being blamed, framed, or worse. The account which I'm linking to here concerns an American police department, and is illustrated with newspaper clippings covering the criminality (child sex and stolen goods rings) and malpractice, allong with the suspicious deaths of police whistleblowers Link Removed
The use of violence by American police has very little to do with threat that they face, and a lot to do with the impunity they enjoy. a case in point would be to compare American police use of violence rates with those of other first world countries. I'm not suggesting that the other countries are "good", but the rates are way lower than America's.
While you were checking out figures, did you also see the estimates that the wives and girlfriends of American state sector police, suffer around twice the national average rate of domestic violence - and can expect that experience to be hushed up by their abuser's uniformed buddies?
whistleblowing about corruption, malpractice and downright criminality, has an unfortunate habit of resulting in the whistleblower being blamed, framed, or worse. The account which I'm linking to here concerns an American police department, and is illustrated with newspaper clippings covering the criminality (child sex and stolen goods rings) and malpractice, allong with the suspicious deaths of police whistleblowers Link Removed
D
Deleted member 20280
I have recently lost my job in the Police after 12 years in the Incident Control room. I started taking general enquiry calls and simply helping old ladies, broken down motorists, neighbour-hood type stuff.
Eight years ago I moved from call handling to incident controller. I was responsible for taking critical life and death 999/911 calls in the emergency call center. Believe me when I say you literally have no idea what the next call will potentially be. One minute you can be dealing with an RTC non-damage blocking a main arterial route and causing havoc, 30 seconds after dealing with that call the next one could be a high risk Child Abduction.
For me I took the job on as I wanted to help, I wanted to make a difference to other peoples lives.
Eight years ago I moved from call handling to incident controller. I was responsible for taking critical life and death 999/911 calls in the emergency call center. Believe me when I say you literally have no idea what the next call will potentially be. One minute you can be dealing with an RTC non-damage blocking a main arterial route and causing havoc, 30 seconds after dealing with that call the next one could be a high risk Child Abduction.
For me I took the job on as I wanted to help, I wanted to make a difference to other peoples lives.
- Status
Similar posts
- Locked
- Poll
Donation drives
Trending content
-
-
What Are You Feeling Today? Not Thinking, Rather Feeling! Can You Identify Yours?
- goingonhope
Comments: 34K -
-
-
-
