[References for the original story of the Tony Arambula shooting by Phoenix PD]
© COPYRIGHT 2009 BY BRADLEY J. STEINER — ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
MOST of those who subscribe to CQ are doubtless aware of the recent catastrophic event that occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, when a police officer shot a homeowner six times in error, when responding to that very homeowner’s — and his wife’s — emergency call to 911. The homeowner had subdued and was restraining at gunpoint a home invader. the dispatcher had so advised, and, upon the officers’ arrival on the scene, the wife told the police that “the man inside with the gun is my husband — he’s holding the housebreaker on the ground.” The officers proceeded with entry, and one of them opened fire immediately on the homeowner, shooting him six times and — miraculously — not killing him, according to the news report that we heard.
When we first saw the video on the internet (CNN News) in which the wife of the shooting victim and her attorney appeared, reiterating what had occurred and — understandably — in which the wife virtually broke down, we were livid, outraged, and incensed. As is our habit, we e-mailed our commentary regarding the incident to those on our contact list with whom we strive to remain in regular touch. We also referred our contacts to the CNN posted video of what we had seen, with the request that they watch it for themselves.
One of our contacts was a seasoned NYPD Officer (Emergency Services Division, as we understand) with whom we had been in previous contact (a contact originally initiated by him), with whom we had had an extensive conversation regarding our methods of close combat and self-defense, and who had, in addition to his law enforcement experience, a military service (Special Forces, according to him) background. Subsequent to our conversation we replied to an inquiry he had made asking for our input regarding certain close combat actions and responses. The two of us had, we thought at the time, a pretty good rapport.
In response to our e-mail of outrage concerning the unjustifiable shooting of the private citizen by the Phoenix police officer we received an aggressive, angry, severely critical e-mail from this NYPD Officer. It began with the demand that we remove him from our contact list, and went on to express his livid, outraged, incensed reaction to us and to our position regarding the Phoenix shooting. There was not even a word of concern, compassion, or care for the shooting victim; and there was not even a slight degree of acknowledgement that the disgraceful (and frankly terrifying) incident was the responsibility of those charged with “serving and protecting”. All that this Officer could see, hear, feel, or comprehend was that we were not blindly supporting or excusing the Phoenix police officer. We were “being critical of cops”. (And you’re goddamned right we ARE critical — justifiably critical, according to any rational standard! — when anything of this nature occurs. We do not have an overweaning respect for police, soldiers, bookkeepers, doctors, truck drivers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers, or anyone else.) When the wrong thing is done, those who have done it should be acknowledged to have done wrong, and should be held accountable for their behavior!
We could not help but think (as we deleted this individual’s e-mail address and name from our contact list, and wrote him off as “one among many” of those with whom circumstances have proven to be a meaningless individual with whom to continue to relate) HOW THIS OFFICER WOULD HAVE REACTED IF THIS SITUATION HAPPENED TO HIM AND TO HIS WIFE, AT HIS HOME.
While pointing it out to him would have only resulted in denial and — likely — increased and renewed rage, what this Officer was demonstrating via his attitude was a TRIBAL mentality. His “tribe” was threatened. His loyalty is to his “tribe”. It is them or it is us according to this primitive, uncivilized, dangerous form of VERY UNAMERICAN “thinking”.
AND THIS IS HOW MANY PEOPLE “THINK” TODAY.
A reasonable human being is loyal first and foremost to principles. When a man becomes a law enforcement officer in a free and open society he is loyal to the PRINCIPLE that all persons’ rights must be respected as sacred, and that it is his solemn responsibility to PROTECT and to SERVE the private citizenry of that society. He is sworn to this concept (as a “sworn” officer), and he must never knowingly or intentionally violate the rights of any private citizen. Nor must he permit anyone else to do so; EVEN IF THAT “SOMEONE ELSE” IS ALSO A POLICE OFFICER!
Few types of people are as potentially dangerous to the safety, well-being, and life of the private citizen, than the kind of persons who regard themselves and their fellow police officers as being “brothers” — amongst whom and within whose tribe, all swear and uphold an allegiance to each other, rather than to the purpose of serving and protecting the citizenry. Sadly, this appears to be the state of affairs with all too many police officers today in our Country.
The cop who refuses to give a ticket to a “brother officer” is a disgrace.
The cop who covers up for a “brother officer” who has perpetrated misconduct is a disgrace.
The cop who uses steroids to assist himself in building his body — but who arrests others who use steroids — is a disgrace.
The cop who participates in an effort to disarm the private citizen is a disgrace.
The cop who employs unnecessary degrees of force against a suspect is a disgrace.
The cop who drives, parks, or otherwise manages control of his vehicle in any manner for which he would stop and ticket a private citizen (except, of course, during the course of official , legitimate law enforcing, when such driving or vehicle management is necessary and justifiable) is a disgrace.
Nothing destroys citizen confidence in and respect for the police more than obvious misconduct by police THAT GOES UNACKNOWLEDGED AND UNPUNISHED because such misconduct was done by police, and thus “brother officers” turn a blind eye toward the misdeed and toward “one of their own”.
In today’s decaying and decrepit society we observe all sorts of expressions of this “tribal” mentality. But in no other — save perhaps the military and the intelligence communities, as well — besides law enforcement and police work, is the negative and horrific effect upon the decent, innocent private citizen felt so bitterly, painfully, and acutely.
And, as history has shown, sooner or later, people fight back.
There is a crucial lesson to be learned from observing our experience with this police officer, and in noting the tone and style of his outrage. Instead of being supremely loyal to the principles which he presumably had been sworn to uphold and to protect, his loyalty is to PEOPLE. Specifically, it is to those people who are part of his particular “club” (or “gang”, or “tribe”); i.e OTHER COPS.
This kind of tribal thinking may be seen in other venues today. For example: black people who automatically defend any black person in any conflict where the opposition happens to be white. Or the reverse: whites who automatically defend other whites when a conflict happens to be between parties of different ethnicities. Women who assume that if any woman has any disagreement or conflict with any man, then the man involved must automatically be wrong. Etcetera.
This kind of primitive, tribal LUNACY and lack of basic CIVILIZATION is indicative of the crumbling of Western Civilization, per se. It is at once frustrating, alarming, disgusting, and dangerous. Give the matter a few minutes serious thought and, if you’re intelligent enough to appreciate CQ and that which this Publication stands for, espouses, and presents, you ought to be able easily to see why.
/////////////////////////////E N D /////////////////////////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment