PRETEND WE HAVE A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

One silver lining to the increased attention given to police using lethal force is that some of the creepier aspects of the cop subculture are being exposed to the public. Turns out, perhaps unsurprisingly, that a lot of contractors who market themselves to police departments under the guise of "training" are absolute lunatics.

The officer recently found not guilty of manslaughter in the Philando Castile shooting, for example, attended a training session for something called "Bulletproof Warrior," an odd name for a program aimed at police officers who are neither bulletproof nor "warriors." The gist of the program is that every suspect is waiting to kill you, it will happen in the blink of an eye, and the Bulletproof Warrior must silence that nagging voice in his head that says not to kill people. Kill or be killed, so you better hurry up and shoot the suspect before he shoots you.

I mean, what could go wrong.

Also take a look at this guy named Dave Grossmann (who was featured in the 2016 documentary Do Not Resist) who promises trainees that they will have the best sex of their lives on the day they finally kill someone.

For all of the "Not all cops are bad!" talk that takes place, where are the people in the police departments that use this sort of "training" who should be standing up and saying, "Hold on, this is completely insane"? Maybe they exist and get silenced. Or maybe they don't exist. What would be nice is if we had a real Justice Department that did the job of overseeing law enforcement in this country, one that would use every tool at its disposal to take Federal control over any police department whose leadership looks at what these "trainers" have to offer and decides that this is how street cops should be interacting with the public. It would be nice not to have to tiptoe around reality whenever the topic is law enforcement; a real political leader would say unequivocally, "Anyone who thinks the problem with law enforcement in this country is that police do not shoot enough people is not fit to have a badge and a gun, period."

It would be nice. Too bad we can't have anything nice.

Be Sociable, Share!

46 Responses to “PRETEND WE HAVE A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT”

  1. Matt Says:

    Guys like Grossmann also explain why some parts of the law-enforcement community squeal like stuck pigs about a "war on cops" when they're subjected to basic regulation and review: they're terrified that somebody's literally going to steal their penis and make sure they can't ever have that great sex.

  2. Major Kong Says:

    "who promises trainees that they will have the best sex of their lives on the day they finally kill someone."

    I was miles downrange by the time my bombs hit the ground, but I can say with good probability that I killed a bunch of people.

    I was usually either terrified or too tired to care.

  3. NC_Nate Says:

    I recently attended one of those "traffic safety" courses you have to take to get out of a speeding ticket. This one was taught by a retired cop who, instead of covering the basics of traffic safety and insurance, decided to spice up his lecture with stories from his career.

    We were all subject to his bizarre rants on EMPs, survivalism, concealed carry (we should all be doing it) and the needs of a mid-size city police department to carry a couple MRAPs and one of those, in his words, "ear busting crowd control machines". He talked about how his friends in the police department had those vehicles ready for action should the Women's March get "out of hand". He also talked about how much he loved being a SWAT cop.

    There were several black people in this class. They found none of it very amusing but we all shut up and dealt with it so we could get that dumb certificate and get out of our tickets.

  4. Major Kong Says:

    Where's the so-called "Libertarian Right" on militarized police forces?

    My pissant little semi-automatic rifle isn't going to do much against an MRAP in the case of "government tyranny".

  5. Kovpakistan Says:

    Welcome to the Grifter Economy. Whether you're a "terrorism expert" or a "Russian hybrid war expert," there's always a government agency or corporation willing to be bilked out of money. If you have a silver tongue, the only thing holding you back is a conscience.

  6. democommie Says:

    "If you have a silver tongue, the only thing holding you back is a conscience."

    In other words: KACHIIIIIIIIIIING.

    All of the talk about this sort of institutionalizaion of hate crime makes me wonder how long it will be before we have "Citizen Police Auxiliaries" with limited police powers and nothing more lethal than AR-variants (no decent MurKKKan, after alll, would be seen dead carryin' no fuckin' ChicomRussQueda AK-variant!) and different sorts of pumpgunz–in addition to their 9's, 40's, .357, .38 and other weapons AND suppressors and M-84
    flash bangs*.

    Training sessions will be held in various spots, including church fellowship halls and bars (underground bars being the most preferred) where methods for crowd control/elimination by senior SM/SS** leaders.

    Alles in guter Ordnung, was könnte schief gehen?

    * Unless you're a neigborhood "Squad leader" in which case you will be authorized to carry several M-67 hand grenades and have up to 5 ea M-18 Claymores.

    ** Savin' MurKKKa/ Savin' Society

  7. Benny Lava Says:

    Conservatives cry about jack booted government thugs coming to kill people until the actual jack booted government thugs kill someone, at which point they applaud.

  8. Safety Man! Says:

    @democommie
    I'm not sure which is the best answer to your statement, please pick from the following: militias, volunteer police forces (I've seen them in Appalachia, trust me), for-profit prisons, etc. Suffice to say we've been here for an unfortunate amount of time.

    @major kong
    Militarization of police and police corruption used to be my biggest pet peeve, like those thin blue line flags popping up now. Today though, today I'm more worried about open conflict with Russia in Syria after we shot down that Su-22.

  9. Greg Says:

    The people who might see it's crazy are too low down in the hierarchy to. E able to, and by the time they get up they are pre-selected to have drunk the kool-aid.
    I've worked on police violence cases and seen the experts and their pseudoscientific institutes, credentials, and studies. There are also professional magazines (i.e. Cop magazines) that help disseminate this crap to keep them in their filter bubbles.

  10. Tim H. Says:

    Wonder what the reaction will be when the inevitable incident demonstrates that "white" is on their target list if the individual isn't immediately useful to power.

  11. ronzie Says:

    Training is certainly a factor, but the type of people hired in law enforcement also has an effect. They are mostly male, and males are more aggressive and violent than females. Police officers are also more likely to be violent in their private lives than other men; some statistics show that 40% of law enforcement families experience domestic violence, compared to 10% of the population at large. Some police forces also test their applicants for intelligence and reject those who score too high, a practice that one court has ruled is not discriminatory. Add to that a culture among law enforcement that discourages officers from testifying against their comrades and where the saying "it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six" is popular, and you can see that we've got to do a lot more than improve officer training to reduce unnecessary killings by police.

  12. democommie Says:

    @ Safety Man?

    They've been dying for a chance to recreate the scenes of the the brave White Knights of the KKK from D.W. Griffiths' "Triumph of the Witless" or "Birth of White Nationalism" or whatever that piece of trash was called.

    All of these people who hate on non-whites and love seein' them put in their place (which includes a lot of 6x6x3' holes) generally feel very insecure in their estates–as well as the "mobile estate courts" a lot of them live–to the extent of needin' allathemgunz to defend themselves from the murderous hordes they're trying to stir up. Curiously, a lot of them seem to abhor travel to places where there is no shortage of people whom they are ENCOURAGED to shoot.

  13. Prairie Bear Says:

    A number of years ago, I was having a conversation with someone who was recalling a conversation with someone else. The someone else (SE) lived in one of those cities that was having an event that was expected to attract large protests. SE was also an avid amateur photographer and asked a police-officer friend about the possibility of going downtown to take pictures of the goings-on. SE was advised, "Don't do it; stay away — even if you think you're in a safe place, it can be too hard for us to tell the friendlies apart."

    Friendlies. Now, I'm not sure if that was the original term the police officer used — the person telling me had a military background (I don't know if the cop did) and might have reworded it. I didn't think to ask (sad to say, person is since passed away) and it took a while for it to hit me how weird it sounded and whay . I knew about bad shootings at the time, but had not really caught on yet to the extreme militarization aspect. I would not be at all surprised if the cop had originally used that word.

  14. Davis X. Machina Says:

    When I contemplate some of the kids — boys, all of them — we send off to the local vocational HS for their criminal justice path, I get very worried.

    Sure, they're only 10th graders, but what do you say about someone whose rational for choosing the career is the possibility at least of shooting someone licitly?

  15. carrstone Says:

    Let's not forget that policing is not a pro-active activity. If you really want fewer police shootings, don't encourage their reactive response by breaking the law.

  16. anotherbozo Says:

    The facts in this post, combined with those in this article, make for a great recommendation to move to England:

    http://thegrio.com/2015/05/12/fbi-white-supremacists-law-enforcement/

    I've asked myself, a white man living in Manhattan, whether the sight of a police officer fills me with reassurance or dread. Even for me, it's the latter. For "New York's finest" the civilian is just the Other.

  17. Grung_e_Gene Says:

    It's simple natural science you libs! If the person killed by a LEO is black the shootings is a priori a good shoot. Philando Castile was black so the killing wasn't extrajudicial but, in accordance with all laws, policies, and codes of the American Justice System.

    DT campaigned on this; all blacks are criminals, all immigrants are illegal mexicans, all terrorists are muslims.

  18. mothra Says:

    I did not follow the Philando Castile case closely, other than to know that it was going on and then, of course, to learn that the officer was acquitted. Since I have some very intimate knowledge of the court system and of police shooting cases in particular, I want to know what evidence was allowed and what was rejected? What case was the prosecution allowed to present? The jury may have had a very narrow set of evidence on which to base their verdict, so be careful when you quickly assume it was all a bunch of racists on the jury who decided to acquit the police officer. I do wonder how they managed to end up with a majority white jury as well. WTF happened there?

  19. mothra Says:

    Also, the cop did lose his job. So at least the police department in St. Anthony took action.

  20. Aurora S Says:

    @Major Kong–

    It's because the government "jackbooted thugs" of which the Libertarian Right speaks are the kind that bust down the doors to the homes of white men to take their guns, while the kind that shoot black people are faithfully serving Justice.

  21. democommie Says:

    @ Crappstain:

    I'm not sure what happened when you were much younger (say, 2 or 3 years ago when you were 10yo) but it can't be undone. You can't everybody who isn't you just 'cuz. Actually, YOU can do that and continue to be perceived as a racist, misogynist and xenophobe. And, then, of course, there's your need for abuse. That's easily solved if you're near a major city–out in the 'burbs you may have to get into KKKristian Mingle or some other service that specializes in matching RWNJADMRAs like yourself with compliant stepfordiansisterwives.

    Have at it, asshole.

  22. Aurora S Says:

    @mothra–

    It's racism. At least mostly. The people on the jury haven't been living under rocks their whole lives and have had the same "all POC are criminals" bullshit pumped into their brains as everyone else since the time they were born. It's the same reason white people cross the street when they see a black man walking towards them. It's also the same reason that "internalized oppression" is a thing. It's the subtle buzz of white supremacy all around us in America.

    Since this literally cannot adversely affect white people–the majority of the population–they don't necessarily notice it. It becomes instinct. You don't even have to be a bigot outright to participate. A white person can say to themselves, "Everyone is equal" (and believe it) while at the same time believing that POC are more likely to be criminals than white people by nature.

  23. carrstone Says:

    @democommie

    What an excellent, skillfully worded argument. Now, if only it had dealt with the issue at hand ….

  24. Brian M Says:

    gallstone: Why should he? You comment doesn't deal with the matter at hand in any real way: militarized police forces that shoot people.

    I know, the usual right wing nut job approach is 'OBEY, SUBJECT. OBEY" But as we are not quite there yet, I have no clue as to what you point is.

  25. mojrim Says:

    This makes me wonder what the hell happened to Dave Grossman over the past two decades. Between On Killing and Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill he seemed to be interested in lowering the body count. I've noticed that certain personality disorders, such as paranoia and OCD, seem to deepen with age. I'm wondering if he finally fell over the edge.

    @Greg, @ronzie: It's a perfect storm of wrong, from selection to training to equipment to incentives.

    We recruit tightly wound loners, often with a violent childhood and a missionary zeal to fix it (a form of time travel) in policing. We teach them statute but not case law, and a lot of "how" but not a lot of "when." We pump them full of paranoia from older cops whose personality disorders have bloomed, then set them loose with little to no supervision. We equip them for a war zone, accentuate the difference between "police and civilians,"* and reward them for backing up their buddies no matter what.

    *Please, everyone, stop using this construction. Cops are not subject to the UCMJ or any other such code. Using this just plays into the myth.

  26. Major Kong Says:

    "don't encourage their reactive response by breaking the law."

    Well, I'm all for the cops shooting people who drive slow in the left lane on the interstate.

  27. Major Kong Says:

    So just what level of infraction should warrant a summary execution by cop?

    Broken taillight?
    Jaywalking?
    Lane change without signalling?
    Expired tag?
    Conspiring with a foreign government to influence an election?

  28. Major Kong Says:

    Oddly enough you never see them going in guns blazing when serving a warrant for securities fraud.

  29. Dice Says:

    Law enforcement officers once stood in defense of civilization, against chaos.

    Chaos, it seems, offers perquisites unavailable in an ordered society. Why, when you are given a fully automatic assault weapon for use in the course of your job, should you not be able to use it on somebody? Waste of cordite.

    Like the one buzzard said to the other, "Patience, my ass … "

  30. Bitter Scribe Says:

    I wish cops would retire that obnoxious adage, "Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six." It's not better for the guy you kill.

  31. democommie Says:

    @ Bitter Scribe:

    There's prolly a gangbanger equivalency to that:

    "Better to be gotten off by a scumbag lawyer, than offed by a scumbag cop!".

    @Clammstand:

    "Now, if only it had dealt with the issue at hand …."

    I know that you're a genius (in your own mind) but you seem not to be able understand that I have no desire whatsoever to engage in a "debate" with a piece of shit like you.

    I've never read anything you've put in a comment here and not immediately thought, "What a self-important fuckhead.".–not once. My hairy little, catshit eating roomie does far more original thinking than you do.

  32. megamahan Says:

    This is the same Dave Grossman who was all over the television in 1999 blaming violence in media, and in video games in particular, in the wake of the Columbine massacre. Unlike mojrim, I do not believe that he ever actually cared about "lowering the body count". Accompanying his specious connections between fictional portrayals of violence and real-world violence were his declarations that violent video games were "murder simulators" actively training children to murder. He was clearly trying to cash in on that horrifying event, and it sounds like his behavior since has been even more venal. He is a liar, a fraud, and a general blight on humanity. Fuck him.

  33. carrstone Says:

    @Major Kong

    Why would you think that odd? No-one's going to blaze at them when such a warrant is being served.

  34. democommie Says:

    "Why would you think that odd? No-one's going to blaze at them when such a warrant is being served."

    And you will know that they are Liberpublicanz by their cluelessnss re: Judicial and legal inequality.

    You are truly fucking stupid AND heartless.

  35. carrstone Says:

    @Democommie

    That's your answer – because they're liberpublicanz?

    And I'm the child?

    But if, as usual, you haven't understood my comment, let me know and I'll rephrase it, just for you.

  36. Brian M Says:

    carrstone: Whereas the innocent grandma who the cops mistakenly murder when the cops burst into the wrong house was packing heat and deserved to die in a hail of bullets?

  37. democommie Says:

    "But if, as usual, you haven't understood my comment, let me know and I'll rephrase it, just for you."

    Your comments, like your motivations, are perfectly transparent, you stupid fuck.

  38. Major Kong Says:

    If carrstone speaks in the forest, and no one is around to hear, is he still wrong?

  39. democommie Says:

    @Major Kong:

    And if a tree fell on him, would anyone give a shit?

  40. carrstone Says:

    @Major Kong

    "Wrong'? Wrong about what? That white collar criminals don't open fire on the police when they're being arrested?

    Or is 'wrong' now the new short-form for 'he doesn't agree with us'?

    You Progressives, you're all shaped by the same mold – you can't see the wood for the trees.

  41. democommie Says:

    ""Wrong'? Wrong about what?"

    Everything.

    Somehow, as well educated as you claim to be be (and strive to prove in so many patently offensive comments) you conflate the following:

    White collar criminals NOT shooting at cops is the same as cops shooting people who commint non-white collar crimes.

    You, of course, buy into the whole notion of "white collar" theft of billions of dollars in people's savings–thereby altering or eliminating retirement or educational planning for those robbed of their assets–being inherently less odious or "violent" than selling crack or robbing a liquor store. Given your obvious bloodlust for punishing miscreants and the scale of their crimes, people like Bernie Madoff should be kept in a grain silo and be subjected to a steady rain of pocket change dropped onto him by people at the top–those people he defrauded out of their life's savings.

    I already know, based on your self-report that you have zero qualms about punishing those who commit SOME crimes. I also know, again by your own words that you haven't a scintilla of compassion for anyone.

    So, you're a privileged white, KKKristianist male–so, go fuck yourself.

  42. carrstone Says:

    @democommie

    "Everything"? That's hardly an answer to my question.

    But don't beat up on yourself, progressive debating skills are minimal and rely on cant, we guys in the real world are aware of that. You need only look at the simian Anti-fa troops, unable to make a decent argument, who fail to realize that they're poster-children for fascism.

    It's no wonder they hide their faces.

  43. democommie Says:

    "Everything"? That's hardly an answer to my question."

    In which universe, dimples?

    Everything you post is either complete, utterly debunked bullshit OR it's complete utterly debunked bullshit.

    I'm not looking to have a debate with a fucking troll.

    "You need only look at the simian Anti-fa troops, unable to make a decent argument, who fail to realize that they're poster-children for fascism."

    And this is what, serious exposition? You are mind numbingly stupid.

    If it was only me who dismissed you, laughed at you and told you to go fuck yourself–I might think I was a bit harsh.

    Guess what, fuckhead, NOBODY here "debates" with you because it's a waste of time to try arguing with someon who doesn't even understand the concept.

    Keep flappin' your paper asshole and shitting out those Randian pearlz, son.

  44. quixote Says:

    Well, this is tangential, but jury selection really needs to be changed. Now, defense and prosecution have a number (three?) of "free passes" to get rid of potential jurors they don't like. (I know there's a technical term for it, but I've forgotten.)

    They use those to get rid of everybody with an advanced degree. Having a Ph.D. guarantees you'll never sit on a jury unless they've somehow already run through all their free passes. And then I also had this experience:

    Hispanic man accused of threatening someone with a knife at a party that got out of hand. Defense is asking us prospective jurors whether the man, as he sits there, is presumed innocent or not.

    My immediate reaction was, "Is this a trick question?"

    Turns out I was the only one of the whole group who said, "Presumed innocent of course."

    i was also immediately excused by the prosecution.

    The blame for being ignorant racists doesn't rest entirely with the jurors. The system helps a lot.

  45. democommie Says:

    @Quixote:

    I would say that any adult who is an ignorant racist is that way because they are fearful, lazy or stupid. So far as them being empaneled on a jury–that IS the fault of the system.

  46. carrstone Says:

    There we have it.

    Once again you don't answer a perfectly simple question. It's as though you don't have the nous to do so and therefore resort to unproven assertions.

    And then there's your pathetic assumption that I care what you or any of your buddies think of me, group-love may be a mainstay of your existence, your cusses motivate me to yank your chain.

    De-bunked, hey? Please tell me where I might find the de-bunking of "white collar criminals don't open fire on the police when they're being arrested".

Leave a Reply