Stop Being an Enabler For a Cop in the Family

One of the greatest obstacles in illustrating the police state issues is trying to break through the resistance put up by people who are unwilling to be critical of police because they have a law enforcement officer in their family. Hundreds or thousands of times I have watched people respond to obviously immoral and illegal police acts by denying the police issue because “my dad is a cop and he is a good person.” Those people who have a police officer that they love in their family cannot bear to admit that their loved one is part of a system that is inhumane and out-of-control. This compounds the moral shortcoming of the individuals in the police system with yet another. We are responsible for guiding the people we love towards good choices and a moral path. When we refuse to see their culpability in immoral activities, then we bind our own hands against helping them to make better choices.

“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say.” – Martin Luther

The problem begins with a simple logical error. To say that “all cops are bad” is not to say “all people who are cops are completely bad.” The fact is that even some of the worst people behind a badge merit love and respect in multitudes of other ways outside of their profession. Almost everybody has goodness and redeeming qualities about them. When we say that all cops are bad, what we mean is that the law enforcement system is so broken that participation in it is bad. Regardless of whether or not a single officer even participates in an immoral law enforcement incident, their participation still validates and assists a system which has failed.

“Force always attracts men of low morality.” – Albert Einstein

Right now there are undoubtedly innocent men and women cooking dinner for some terrorist group. While these people have never hurt anyone themselves and are only doing something which is good, feeding people, their efforts make it possible for terrorist cells to operate. Without theirs and others efforts to support the terrorist, the bombers would not have the time or resources to bomb cars or blow up hospitals and schools. Everybody who contributes to terrorism or the well being of the terrorists is culpable. Even though I have no doubt that many very good people do little more than cook food, clean latrines or mend uniforms for the terrorists, their efforts make it all possible and it is essentially that in order to peacefully end terrorism that we reach out to these individuals.

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me —
And there was no one left to speak for me.”
– Pastor Martin Niemöller.

The same is true of police. Most of them are good human beings, worthy of love and respect. In order to honor their goodness, we should not defend their participation in bad deeds. We should instead help to steer them away from these deeds. This is what you do for people you love. You do not make excuses for them. You help them to see their errors, so they can grow and prosper as individuals. Love gives you a responsibility to let those you love know when they have gone off track. It is precisely because your cop father or aunt or grandpa or wife is a good person that you owe it to them to illustrate how their activities are not in line with their goodness. 

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

Enabling PoliceIt is possible to be both a good person and a bad cop. But eventually any LEO may be forced, in the line of duty, to take part in an action which is so immoral it threatens their goodness as an individual. It is the duty of those who love them to help prevent that from happening. We are the people tasked with watching the watchmen. It is our difficult task to bravely face those we love and tell them when they have made an error in judgement. It is our job to break through the social dogma and momentum and have the courage to tell somebody whom we love and respect that they have chosen the wrong path and to show them how and why. For every single LEO, there are dozens or more people who love them. While the police may be directly guilty of trespasses against justice, reason and humanity; each of us is also guilty every time we succumb to denial or cowardice. If we all talked to our cop uncle or daughter about their choices, we could easily begin a trend in which no more good people ever chose to wear a bad guy’s badge.

“Justification is the enabler of cowardice. People are cable of abominable acts as long as they can justify it to themselves.” – Chris Brady

The first step is with you. You must stop being in denial. Your love for the individuals in law enforcement makes you directly responsible for understanding the problem, so that you can help prevent those you love from being part of it. Denying that being a cop nowadays is bad, is just a way of denying that you are a coward, who refuses to stand up for the truth, even when it means saving the morality of those you love. You are not honoring and protecting those you love. You are enabling them. In the same way a wife might enable her husband, who is a good man but a bad drunk, the families of police have enabled the inhumane mess that we are in.

“Loving and supporting someone is not the same as loving and supporting someone’s actions if they are harming themselves and others. The first encourages, the second enables. It takes courage to say, “I love you, but I cannot support what you’re doing. But that will give them incentive to change much more than hoping they’ll change ever will.” – Doe Zantamata

Addicted to the Law
– – – – – – – – – – Addicted to the Law – – – – – – – – – – –

The problem is growing rapidly. Everyday the police commit acts of murder, rape, theft and any number of atrocities we do not condone outside of their profession. Unless you are okay with those activities, you must see how critically important it is that we address the situation as soon as possible. We are no longer defending good men and women, we are defending men and women who contribute to murder, rape, theft, and a host of other atrocities; even if indirectly. We no longer have the comfort of moral relativity or ethical wishy-washiness.

The landscape is changing quickly and a critical mass is coming in which it will no longer be possible to be a LEO and a good person. The moral tide is coming in and those you love are standing at waters edge facing away. Will you stand up and warn those you love, or will you leave them to be sucked under because you didn’t want to personally spoil their day at the beach?

“If the addict is pleased with your help, you are probably enabling. If the addict is pissed as hell, you are probably helping the person you love.” – Sandy Swenson

It is becoming more and more clear that cops are resisting this message. Our ability as activists to make a difference is not by enlightening the police directly. It is our task to enlighten you, so that you can use this information to help those you love to sever ties with the growing malignancy that is our legal system. I will be sending this article to my cousin, who is a LEO. Growing up he was among the sweetest and most caring people I knew. He still is. He has a heart of gold and his intentions are in the right place. But his actions are not. He will not be happy with me for doing this. He may not speak to me for a very long time. Yet it is my hope that I can help save him from a path which inevitably leads to immoral actions. He is too good of a person and too important to me not to do this. I hope that you have just as much respect for those that you love who are LEO’s and show it by sharing this article with them and discussing the larger problem in its entire context. If we all do not do our part, it is not the police who will destroy our moral and ethical fabric, but ourselves.

copblock welcomes LEOs


Scarce Original Authentic Supernumerary Palestine Police Ghaffir Cap Hat Badge picture
Scarce Original Authentic Supernumerary Palestine Police Ghaffir Cap Hat Badge

Ww I Uruguayan Police Officer Full Dress Kepi Hat Cap With Red Pom Pom Very Rare picture
Ww I Uruguayan Police Officer Full Dress Kepi Hat Cap With Red Pom Pom Very Rare

Vintage Antique Policemans Cap Hat With Police Buttons picture
Vintage Antique Policemans Cap Hat With Police Buttons

Vintage  Nypd Police Riot Helmet, Cap, Shoulder Holster And More picture
Vintage Nypd Police Riot Helmet, Cap, Shoulder Holster And More

Chilean Carabineros Police General Highest Rank Embroidery Hat Cap Scarce  picture
Chilean Carabineros Police General Highest Rank Embroidery Hat Cap Scarce

Alia Atreides

Hi, my name is Trevor. Thanks for reading!

  • Common Sense

    And without the police all crime will stop, bunnies will hop around and rainbows with appear every morning.

    I’m sure that those who don’t wear a “costume” who commit a murder every 31 minutes, a rape every 2 minutes, a larceny every 4 minutes, an assault every 40 seconds, they will see that taking advantage of others is just wrong, heed Joshua’s sage like wisdom. And then the nations of the world will join and there could actually be a planetary federation like in Star Trek, a better vision, just like Joshua dreams.

  • Sikko

    Who are you, Joshua, to define morality for the rest of us? What makes your view of morality so much more moral than anyone else’s?

  • Pw4x3r

    I’m going to start by guessing he does not spend every day of his life violating other citizen’s rights. I’ll also wager they, like most everyone who posts something here, has had first hand experience with the corrupt force of law in this country. This person’s view of morality is a direct result of the complete bullshit that gets shit on the people in this country every day.

  • Sikko

    None of which answers the question. He’s just an authoritarian of a different stripe, “live by my morals.”

  • t

    Absolutely right.
    He wants to use fear and intimidation to force you to bend to his will.
    He is the classic “liberal” approach.

    I do have to give him credit though. Both Josh and Aza are prolific in their writings. Sadly…both are clearly products of ultra liberal teachings and they have been led very far astray from the real world.

  • Truthspew

    My grandfather was a Providence Police officer for 20 years. He retired from the force the year I was born.

  • JC

    The author says, “One of the greatest obstacles in illustrating the police state issues is trying to break through the resistance put up by people who are unwilling to be critical of police because they have a law enforcement officer in their family”. Are you serious? You decide what is right or wrong within a family. Your statements are just idiotic.

    The author says, “Those people who have a police officer that they love in their family cannot bear to admit that their loved one is part of a system that is inhumane and out-of-control. This compounds the moral shortcoming of the individuals in the police system with yet another”. Again, those are your words and not very good ones. Just because you have no respect for yourself, don’t target others who are living the American dream. Idiot.

  • ymygody

    half of my family are law enforcement, and look at the shit I say about them on this site. I don’t agree with their choice in job selection, and trust me we have knock down drag out fights about police brutality and corruption. the things I say on this site, should be adhered to. because I can tell you from the inside, they are very corrupt.

  • ymygody

    the truth bothers you I see. like I said before, half my family is law enforcement in some form or another. I watch it from the inside. I know truthfully how corrupt they are.

  • ymygody

    you would think that police have been around forever according to your arguments. police are a relatively new development, it was generally communities that kept themselves safe. not some piece of shit troll pig.

  • ymygody

    lol, fear and intimidation as a liberal tactic? you got to be out of your fucking mind. put the Kool Aid down, you’ve had too much.

  • ymygody

    morality isn’t singularly defined, what type of fucking argument is that? you’re much smarter than that, use that brain to make a little more enlightened argument.

  • Frosty

    Don’t bother with this guy, he basically lives here and is either a cop himself or paid to talk then up 24/7. Waste of time.

  • ymygody

    I’m intimately familiar with JC. I have been on his ass for 6 months continually showing him what is allowed by our 1st Amendment protections. like saying that police should be chopped up with chainsaws and put on video for us all to watch. opinions are a wonderful thing. and they make JC freak the fuck out.

  • Sikko

    It’s an argument based on reality. Morality is anything but singularly defined in American culture, let alone world wide.

    Prime example: Murder is wrong, morally. However a decided majority would support sanctioning the murder of someone that had perpetrated wanton acts of evil, such as the rape and murder of a child.

    So, tell me, if morality IS actually singularly defined, where do I find this singular definition?

  • ymygody

    I think you misread. I said morality is not singularly defined.

  • ymygody

    just make sure there is no intent in your statements. JC threatens to have me arrested daily.

  • Sikko

    Nah, he’s dead accurate. Of course, from a political perspective, all politicians thrive on fear and intimidation. The liberal mindset, liberal being coopted from the classic term, is to shut down all opposition by any means necessary, and primarily through intimidation and fear.

  • ymygody

    I suppose we should define the term liberal. its obvious our definitions differ, which is no surprise with the English language.

  • ymygody



    open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

    “they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people”


    (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.

    synonyms:wide-ranging, broad-based, general

    “a liberal education”

  • Sikko

    And this would be the classical definition, I, like t, was speaking from the political definition of liberal, being the opposite of conservative.

  • ymygody

    All from wiki.

    Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and international cooperation.

    whereas conservatives are defined as: political philosophy emphasizing the need for the principles of natural law and transcendent moral order, tradition, hierarchy and organic unity, agrarianism,classicism and high culture, and the intersecting spheres of loyalty.[1] Some traditionalists have embraced the labels “reactionary” and “counterrevolutionary”, defying the stigma that has attached to these terms since the Enlightenment.

  • t

    I waited until that was done to straighten out yet more CBer learning.

    What would you call the “Weather Undeground”?
    Certainly not conservative. They were ultra left wing liberals. That bombed police stations. And the pentagon. They were terrorists.
    But that’s just the violent side of intimidation. Most liberals prefer to be “checkbook terrorists”. They used social spending to control and manipulate.
    Liberals LOVE government and want to grow it as much as possible. To get their fingers into every part of your life.

    That’s not me guy.

    That’s what you embrace….without even being smart enough to see it.

  • ymygody

    see thats shows your simple bias towards an uneducated viewpoint of what a liberal is. obviously there are extremists that claim to be any one of the political parties, yet they are truly not those political parties nor do they hold to the founding viewpoints of those political parties. to say that liberals love government shows your ignorance. shows how much the media has brainwashed you into redefining the term of liberal. all the political terms have been perverted, open your eyes and see that. so before you can start an argument about a term, that term needs to be defined and agreed upon.

  • Sikko

    This is why I referenced the “classical” definition, liberal today is synonymous with progressive, they areare about big government loving, rights restricting in the name of fairness, diversity and fighting “systemic oppression” of all sorts. The classical liberal thinking now falls under the realm of libertarian thinking.

  • Sikko

    It wasn’t a misread. It was a misinterpretation of the whole question, as though the question was built on me thinking that morality is singularly defined and arguing from that vantage point. My argument was based on the absurd notion that morality can be singularly defined, hence my questioning where the author derives his authority to set that singular definition of morality.

  • Michael Lafond

    Actually, the police/Sheriff have been around for thousands of years, just in different forums around the world. You could look at the Sheriffs from mid-evil England, to the Vigiles of ancient Rome, also dating back to the 5th century BC in Greece, where slaves were used by magistrates as a police force. So your statement above is false.

  • t

    True. I do have a bias towards uneducated viewpoints.

    I wasn’t talking of political parties. I was talking of ideals.and actions.
    I am both a fiscal and political,conservative. As such….I beleive in both individual rights and personal responsibility. And that’s where I part company from the liberals and the CBers. Personal responsibility is the liberals enemy. They are of the collective…..of the taken from one to give to another.. They detest accomplishment.and excellence.
    You dictionary definition is just that….a dictionary definition. It’s not a real world example.

  • t

    They won’t like hearing that. The truth hurts them.

  • ymygody

    actually the real world definition of the liberal is live and let live. that means that I take care of myself and you take care of yourself and neither of us worry about what the other one is doing. a conservative on the other hand wants society to function the way they feel it should regardless of others viewpoints that differ from theirs.

  • Brian Reese

    the american dream is to be a leech?

  • ymygody

    o make a simple example. a liberal and conservative live next to each other. which one is going to worry about what the other one is doing with their property. from experience I can tell you that the conservative feels that they should be able to dictate what your property should look like. the liberal on the other hand will have his yard the way he wants it and not worry about how the Conservatives yard is. it comes down to a control issue. conservatives want to control, liberals want to live freely. I don’t believe either side once governmental intervention. again the terms are perverted by the mainstream media and by those that are brainwashed by it.

  • shaun h

    “During the early history of policing, individual citizens were largely responsible for maintaining law and order among themselves. Those who served as constables and justices of the peace did so voluntarily and were not typically paid for their services. Shire reeves, or sheriffs, were employed full-time to oversee law enforcement activities within their shires in England and their counties in the

    Police Requirements
    colonies.This loosely-based system of social control worked quite well for centuries, particularly in more rural and less populated regions. However, the late 1700’s and early 1800’s saw a population explosion in major cities in the United States and England. Riots and civil unrest was common, and it became increasingly clear that there was a need for a more permanent and professional form of law enforcement that would carry the official authority of the government.The Beginning of Modern PolicingPhilosophers, sociologists and those in the newly evolving field of criminology, including legal philosopher Jeremy Bentham and his accolades, began to call for a centralized police force to protect the citizenry and to maintain order.Perhaps the most powerful advocate for a professional police force was Sir Robert Peel, a Minister of Parliament who served as Home Secretary for the United Kingdom in the 1820’s. In 1829, Peel established the Metropolitan Police Services in London. With the founding of London’s police force, Peel became widely regarded by criminologists and historians alike as the father of modern policing. British police officers are still known affectionately as “Bobbies” in honor of his first name, Robert.Public OppositionThe concept of a centralized, professional police force was a tough sell initially, and was met with a tremendous amount of resistance. There was a fear that a police force would essentially behave as another arm of the military. As result, there was an understandable reluctance to agree to be controlled by what many assumed would be an occupying force.In order to overcome this opposition, Peel is known for laying the framework for what a police force should be comprised of and how a good police officer should conduct himself. While there is debate as to whether he ever clearly enumerated his ideas in any sort of list format, it is generally agreed that he created what are to this day considered to be the primary principles of policing.Principles of PolicingThe “Peelian Principles,” as they are often called, insist that:
    The purpose of the police force is to prevent crime and maintain order.
    Police depend on the approval and trust of the public in order to effectively do their jobs.
    The ultimate goal of policing is to achieve voluntary compliance with the law in the community.
    Police must be unwavering in their duties and adherence to the law, maintaining impartiality and avoiding the temptation to be swayed by public opinion.
    The use of force and physical control is to be used as a last resort, only when other forms of persuasion have failed.
    Police officers must remember that they, too, are members of the public and that their purpose is to serve and protect the public.
    The true measure of the effectiveness of any police force is not the number of arrests or police actions taken, but the absence of criminal conduct and violations of the law.
    Public Support for PolicePeel’s efforts were very effective in assuaging public fears and concerns. In addition to the principles of policing, Peel and his supporters took other measures to ensure that there was a clear distinction between professional police officers and the military. Police wore blue uniforms in contrast to the bright red of the Royal armed forces, they were forbidden to carry guns, and at all times the importance of maintaining the public trust was impressed upon members of the force.Coming to AmericaThis concept of the modern police force soon found its way to the United States, though it was not implemented in exactly the same manner as it was in London. Over the next century and beyond, the concept of policing evolved in the U.S. The principles and ideas of Sir. Robert Peel and his adherents were expounded on by law enforcement professionals around the globe, with the input of officers and criminologists alike.Career Opportunities AboundThanks largely in part to the efforts of men like Sir Robert Peel, the field of criminology has expanded greatly, paving the way for new innovations and establishing new opportunities for rewarding careers in law enforcement and criminal justice.”

  • Michelle Miller

    You really have no shame at all, do you?

  • Sikko

    The liberal you are describing in your example is the classical liberal, what in this modern era has become known as libertarian. The modern liberal is the one that seeks to control.

    To use your example of the neighbors, both are concerned about what the other is doing with their yard. The conservative appeals to the liberal directly with appeals to the betterment of the both and the neighborhood, where the liberal works to have local ordinances established so that when the same “issue” occurs, he now has the force of the local government to back up his stance.

  • Unique

    Isn’t that harassment ????

  • Unique

    In all my years 70, I have never seen so many corrupt police.
    I know there are more good police out there but they do not
    get the good publicity as they should.

  • ymygody

    the people I happened to deal with in real life concerning these small societal issues, it is always the Conservatives that want to involve the government officials rather than speaking with their neighbors and trying to come to a understanding that works for both of them.

  • Seriously now

    Nice work of fiction! Please write more. Maybe someday everyone will realize tha following what an officer sI ays won’t result in a bad ending. Maybe someday people will realize that a “police state” is much better than a military one. Maybe someday dragons will come and eat all the morons who follow the false trash written by copblockers. I hope the fist maybe actually happens, but I bet the last maybe is more likely….

  • t

    If you insist guy.
    You embrace violence….and claim its peace.

    That is YOUR way.

    On the other hand…what do I always write?
    Is it something like how hard you have to work at getting police attention. And how if you stoners didn’t draw attention to yourselves and stayed home….you wouldn’t get into any trouble?

    Now….which of us sounds more reasonable and less controlling?

    You can’t even keep your admitted intentional lying straight.

  • ymygody

    it shows your simple mindedness that you do not understand the devil’s advocate. I personally don’t embrace violence, and I’m always polite to police. I’ve never had a bad encounter with one, though I’m a white educated male that understands the difference between reality and legality. you simply fail to realize the difference between a hypothetical argument or statement and the true motivations behind that statement. you have mistakenly taking them face value, which shows your depth of thought.

  • Kyle

    Great read. Keep up the good work.

  • Kim Graves

    Ok take your 70 yr old ass to bingo seriously do you just watch the videos cop block posts no questions asked? Do you even dare to read an unbiased article? I truly wish the police would start a database of people to put on a “do not respond” list. I wonder how many would volunteer to be on the list. Of course that would include all first responders like emt and fire.

    Copblock.. start a site to be put on the list then send it to the local law enforcement offices but do not think your members can go on to rob rape and kill or do illegal crap you just will not get any benefit

  • Kim Graves

    I am sorry but you and the rest of the herd of sheep have had your rights to think for yourself violated and you all allowed it. Talk about being brainwashed

  • Sikko

    Let me give you a little slice of my own perspective. I’ve lived in several states, several cities, and rural areas. It has been the exact opposite experience for me everywhere that I have lived. I’m a musician, and the people most likely to use noise ordinances against me have been liberals, or the modern variety. In fact, one merely need look at where the most restrictive sets of laws are enacted to see liberals, of the modern variety, trying to control everything…like NYC and its sugary drink ban and ban on selling loose cigarettes….or SF and its ban on Happy Meals

  • ymygody

    I suspect what we dislike are probably the same people, we just label them differently. more of a breakdown in language because of the different uses of similar definitions. my belief is live and let live, regardless of this characters previous statements. I consider myself a liberal, and I’m extremely liberal with what I allow my neighbors and the community surrounding me do. I also do quite a bit to help my neighbors with their property if they are physically unable.

  • ymygody

    do you mean threatening to have me arrested everyday?? Or are you suggesting that opinions that differ from his are harassing him?

  • Kyle

    When has following a copper’s every command EVER led to a GOOD ending? Also, how is a police state any different from a military state? Point out one thing in this article that is false.

  • Kyle

    You’re talking about one of the cop apologists’ comments, right?

  • Sikko

    It’s clearly a case where you adhere to the classic definition, while I am working from the modern/politics-infused definition

  • Michelle Miller

    Nope, I’m talking about all the cop haters/criminal lovers. EVERY cop is bad? Really? Do yo REALLY want to see what this country would be like without police? Here’s a hint. Just look at how law abiding and peaceful Somolia is…

  • Kyle

    I feel like I’m repeating myself quite often. Why should we accept coppers who are violent, corrupt, incompetent, or, in the course of their duties, enforce laws that they themselves don’t agree with? You make it sound as though the only other option is complete anarchy; it’s not. Surely you are aware of what happened with the NYPD recently? Oh, and by the way, if one chooses an occupation where one has to harass, initiate violence upon, and kidnap nonviolent individuals, one has made a BAD choice at the very least.

  • keepitreal

    LOL. To hear you spouting off about liars and the truth is fucking amusing.

  • Michelle Miller

    Don’t try such an obvious strawman argument with me. To label ALL cops as bad/pigs/(insert insult here) and immediately bash them and consider them guilty in every single situation just shows your lack of objectivity. This site in particular has repeatedly shown their cop hating bias by not even TRYING to stick to the facts in favor of misleading and deceiving headlines. If you want the police disarmed or gone, Somalia is what this country
    will become.

  • Kyle

    Answer by second question.

  • Michelle Miller

    No, I will not answer your question because you completely ignore every single one of my questions and comments and continue to make unsubstantiated accusations, making it seem like being a cop is nothing more then “to harass, initiate violence upon, and kidnap nonviolent individuals”.

  • Kyle

    Fine. Ask me a question and I’ll do my best to answer it (I honestly don’t know which ones I didn’t answer :/ ). Then, can I ask you a question?

  • t

    So….your constant espousing of violence….your constant call for violence….your open expressions of wanting violence….but you don’t embrace violence..

    Just the “Devils advocate”

    You say tomato …I say liar. And what’s sad is that you even admit that you lie.

    There ya go.

  • ymygody

    and again you see an onion as an apple. books must be only covers to you.

  • ymygody

    exactly, we are arguing oranges and apples. misunderstanding that we’re not talking about the same fruit. sadly this is where most avoidable confrontations happen.

  • tz1

    It is NOT possible to be a good person and a bad cop.

    If you are living an immoral life, being corrupt, holding double-standards, you are bad. Evil. You are not a good person. It is bad enough when it is simple corruption when it is someone that has no extraordinary power over others, but a “good old boys” network dispenses favors. It is worse when someone is in a position of trust.

    A policeman who lets another cop off from DUI, speeding, or anything else, no matter how trivial or serious is like one of those molesting Catholic Priests. There sickos who prowl the shadows trying to find kids, but when you are in a position of trust, you are held to a hire standard. A policeman is one of those. They aren’t above the law, they are held to a higher standard than the law – morally. To the extent that they aren’t legally, it is simple corruption.

  • Sikko

    Considering that it has been more civil discourse than actual argument, I’d say it is the sort of confrontation that should take place more often as it provides for more insight to those involved, and those who have taken the time to read it. This sort of difference in language is certainly where those confrontations start, but the reason they tend to escalate is from an inability or refusal by one party or the other to even try to understand where the difference even begins.

  • ymygody

    I would agree. this character was designed to test how people reacted to outrageous comments. the data collected was set into three different categories. those that responded intellectually with reason, those that responded emotionally using some reason, and those that responded from an state of strict emotion. I have finished gathering the data for the project in secondary emotional response, so my statements in the future will be from place of reason.

  • Pingback: Road Pirates Tow Car via Ohio Valley CopBlock (VIDEO)()

  • t

    So…..your admitting that you a liar then?

  • t

    And there you are screaming out from the pain. You are seriously sad dude.

  • ymygody

    you forgot the word “are”. this character has always been a charade.

  • ymygody

    what I find to comical is that you and JC and several others claim to be police officers. all you would have had to do was look at my Disqus profile which would be available to the police, and every part of my character is explained. as well as the motivations behind my statements. but I guess it just goes to show that you guys most likely are liars without motive other than to troll this site. if your copblockers in disguise then you are doing a good job rallying people to the efforts of this site. if you’re trying to drive people from the site, then your attitudes are having exactly the opposite effect.

  • Joshua Scott Hotchkin

    As a conservative I value a government which minds its own business, which means not harassing and killing citizens over victimless crimes. The politically liberal view here is more laws, more police and more enforcement.
    Fugkin’ irony!

  • AuroraMoon

    To a certain degree I agree with this. I have a couple of relatives on the police force. one
    of them is a policewoman who specializes in “Special victims” like that
    CSI show where they investigate sex offenders and what not. Anyhow,
    She regularly needs therapy due to the depressing nature of her job. And
    she’s seen so much shit that it’s enough to give her PTSD. Let me tell you, having an fully armed person with pstd isn’t a good thing at all, too many bad things can happen…

    So as an
    result she often depends on her own family to tell her when she needs a
    break from it to go to therapy, etc. Family always can tell if she’s in
    it too deep with certain caseloads. Especially if she starts to suspect
    everyone around her of being a pedophile.. or starts treating everyone
    around her as a possible hostile. that’s definitely when she needs a
    break from the job. If we did not do this then she would be hostile towards almost everyone, even innocent people. If we simply enabled her to do bad choices due to
    the traumatic nature of her job, that would just spend her into an
    downward spiral.

    I think too many police tends to make very poor decisions or get in
    too deep that that they think that everyone is a potential enemy…
    thanks to the stressful nature of their jobs. the worst part is that too
    many police stations doesn’t have psychiatrists on board to tell them
    when they need a break. Because too many policemen complain if they get
    pulled off a case for getting too emotionally involved.
    And it gets worse, because psychopaths can get into the police force very easily if there are no psychiatrists around to separate the bad apples from the people who genuinely want to do good.