Good Cop Or Bad Cop...
Since I've reached a form of mental impasse with another topic I've been working on, I decided to pull "Plan B" from my go-bag of tricks.
And this particular topic just doesn't apply to LEOs, but to every single one of us. It's just that we tend to notice whenever it does involve a member of law enforcement.
We've all see portrayed on TV the whole "good cop/bad cop" gig...
One officer is tough as nails, and takes no prisoners, and is ready to beat the snot out of a suspect, while the other one is caring, understanding, and relatively sympathetic to the suspect.
Works well enough in a dramatic presentation created to ENTERTAIN us.
But here, in the REAL world, no officer can be "either/or"...they often have to become BOTH, and sometimes within a few minutes or even seconds.
When an officer pulls someone over, they are respectful, but at the same time wary of what might be inside the vehicle. Now, unless the traffic stop (and I use this as a rudimentary example) was for something other than a broken tail light (like a erratic pattern of driving), the stop will be pretty much non-chalant, UNLESS the officer feels something else might be amiss.
By and large, most stops result in no hurt feelings, unless the driver gets snotty first. Then, as they say, all bets are off.
Police are there to ENFORCE the laws, and like an expensive piece of china in an upscale store..."If you BROKE it...you BOUGHT it".
Get my drift here?
This is not to say that police officers do NOT have what we call "a bad day".
They do, considering the types of citizens they might encounter within an 8 hour shift.
A GOOD day is when they get to go home safe and sound. But they only realize that at end-of-shift. Everything else before that makes up a "typical" day, which can sometimes go TBRF (too bad, real fast).
Most all officers are what I prefer to call the GOOD cop. That's not to say that there ARE bad ones. No one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. And a few "bad apples" slip through "inspection" and make it to "market".
Hopefully, they will be "pulled from the shelf" soon enough.
The levels of evaluation officer wannabes go through is a lot more comprehensive than in years past, and with good reason.
We live in a "lawsuit-happy mentality" society, and some people will do damn near anything to get something for nothing.
Here in Fort Wayne, one officer (Scott Morales) is on the carpet for 22 allegations in the 20 years he's been in the department for "excessive force".

Here's the link to the story...you decide:

http://www.wane.com/dpp/news/local/fwpd-officer-could-lose-job-

I even had a post about him back on 13 April 2010.

Now, one can take that a few different ways.
If they have ALL been allegations, how MANY of them resulted in criminal proceedings?
How many of those allegations were "unfounded"?
Is there a reason behind THIS officer's behavior, or is that also unfounded?
Is he a GOOD cop...or a BAD cop?
My thoughts on this are many.
Let's say that "if" a person (or persons) wanted this officer off the street, they could contrive a method to do so, simply by continuous allegations and charges brought against the officer.
If a group of people got together and "said" this officer was strong-arming them, what recourse does the department have?
They HAVE to investigate EVERY allegation...that's why departments have what we call "headhunters" (Internal Affairs Division), or I.A.D.
And that costs money..hell, doesn't everything these days?
Another officer (Let's call him "Dave") was also "alleged" (years ago) by a group that he was racially-profiling unjustly.
Now, you have to realize that the area Dave patrolled was about 90% black, which means that the law of averages would emphatically be tipped IN FAVOR of a BLACK person being pulled over for any traffic violation that was warranted.
Well, Dave did his job, and pulled people over for violations that WERE indeed, valid.
But that did NOT stop this group from filing charges against Officer Dave.
It's one way to keep the department "off it's game"...
Keep IAD investigating as many officers as is possible, in order to promote low morale, and create a misdirection by those of dubious repute.
And since the chief has to follow through and issue written "warnings" that go on their record, he's not exactly endearing himself to the men and women under him.
It's been documented that there is rarely a week that goes by, that the FWPD doesn't have SOME frivolous or trumped-up charges levelled against them.
Like I say though, IF the charges are real and the officer is found in the wrong, then by all means, follow through and chastise the officer, and if the charges are severe enough, suspend him/her from duty, or even dismiss him/her from the department. End of subject.
Even LEOs are not "above the law".
But never summarily judge that officer and issue a suspension when none is warranted.
Instead, investigate those who toss those allegations at the officer.
Are they suffering from a case of "cry wolf"?
Because, if they are, that's undermining the effectiveness of the police force in general, and certain officers in particular.
The social dynamics of the streets today is much more complicated than it used to be. That makes enforcing the laws almost as complex.
It's not because the LAWS have changed drastically...they basically haven't.
What HAS changed is SOCIETY ITSELF, as well as how society VIEWS those laws...(mostly with contempt, ignorance, and blatant disregard).
And the ambulance-chasers are eating this up...any excuse to sue the police would seem to be their motto.
SO, the departments are forced to supplant policing with "hand-holding" in many cases...just to avoid lawsuits.
I call it the "Walking on Eggshells Syndrome" - aka Don't rock the diversity/tolerance/multi-cultural boat.
(and if people just followed the damn laws and didn't look upon them as an inconvenience in their all-too-busy lives, we'd ALL make out better on the whole, would we not?)
I get tired of hearing about police officers becoming more of a "social worker" and less of a law-enforcement professional.
That's like having a damn master carpenter doing engine work on your car...it's NOT the job they're hired to do, is it?
I'd much rather have that carpenter design an addition to MY HOUSE...leave the engine work to a master MECHANIC, right?
Same goes for police officers...
Let THEM do what they're trained to do...POLICE WORK.
Leave the "social" work to those trained in that venue.
That would seem to make it possible to have a damn near all GOOD cops on our streets, and hardly ANY bad ones, wouldn't it?
Laws are in place ONLY for the LAW-LESS. I stand by that.
If you're not knowingly breaking any law, there's no need to worry, right?
You don't steal, or rob, or rape, or murder, or sell illegal drugs, or burglarize, or vandalize, or assault, or otherwise do harm to another or yourself...and the police won't bother you one bit (unless they pull you over for that burned out license plate bulb YOU ignored for the past 3 years...or for playing that car stereo louder than an F-16 that's ready for take off)...sound simple enough, right?
Well, until and unless the PUBLIC decides to become knowledgeable (en masse) over such things, we will NEED the LEOs to keep us ALL safe...usually from one another, or ourselves.
It's often a thankless job, thrusting one into the dregs of society on a daily basis, but each and every member of every police department CHOOSES to put themselves on the line...for the rest of us.
In the end, I guess it's not so much about whether we have a GOOD cop or a BAD cop, but whether we have a GOOD citizen...or a BAD citizen. And that choice should be easy enough to make for EVERY citizen.
Be well, make a difference today, go thank a LEO, and...
Stay safe out there, America.