Police Accidentally Record Themselves Conspiring to Fabricate Criminal Charges Against Protester

[disappoint]

No knowledge is required to possess empathy, and no amount of reading about it will give it to you.

I have to disagree with that. I could be wrong but I think knowledge is used to build intuition including empathy. I'm not saying all that possess it realize where it comes from. Including you according to your statement.

Do you know what the source of your empathy is? I do. I mean in my case I do. Notice I used the word intuition purposefully. It's important to note that intuition is often a subconscious process.

in·tu·i·tion
ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: intuition
the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
"we shall allow our intuition to guide us"
synonyms: instinct, intuitiveness; More
sixth sense, clairvoyance, second sight
"he works according to intuition"
a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
plural noun: intuitions
"your insights and intuitions as a native speaker are positively sought"
synonyms: hunch, feeling (in one's bones), inkling, (sneaking) suspicion, idea, sense, notion; More

It's not at all abnormal that you might not remember where your intuitive empathy first came from.

I however do remember. It was in grade school, when a teacher told one of the other students "...put yourself in their shoes, how would you feel?" The teacher didn't call it empathy but that is exactly what he was talking about. You absolutely can be (and probably were) taught empathy. You might not remember when that happened, but I don't believe you were born with it. Do you think an infant or toddler thinks about how you feel due to their actions? I don't think they do. But they can be taught to later on in life.

The reason it's now subconscious is because you don't remember where or when you learned it, or when you started to intuitively use it.

It's like walking, another subconscious process. If I asked you how you walk across a room you can't really tell me. You can't describe in detail which muscles you contract, for how long a duration and what intensity, and which order you fire those muscles in. It's all automatically handled by the fast processing speed of the subconscious. As I'm sure you know it's much faster than the slow critical thinking part of the mind. It's fast, but it has drawbacks, side effects such as a lack of critical thinking ability. You don't have to know how to walk, you just automatically do it. You learned how when you were an infant. Similarly you don't have to know how to be empathic, you just automatically do it, and you learned how at some point in your development, likely many years ago and taught by a caring adult, parent, teacher, sibling, friend, or whomever.

 

[interchange]

I have to disagree with that. I could be wrong but I think knowledge is used to build intuition including empathy. I'm not saying all that possess it realize where it comes from. Including you according to your statement.

Do you know what the source of your empathy is? I do. I mean in my case I do. Notice I used the word intuition purposefully. It's important to note that intuition is often a subconscious process.



It's not at all abnormal that you might not remember where your intuitive empathy first came from.

I however do remember. It was in grade school, when a teacher told one of the other students "...put yourself in their shoes, how would you feel?" The teacher didn't call it empathy but that is exactly what he was talking about. You absolutely can be (and probably were) taught empathy. You might not remember when that happened, but I don't believe you were born with it. Do you think an infant or toddler thinks about how you feel due to their actions? I don't think they do. But they can be taught to later on in life.

The reason it's now subconscious is because you don't remember where or when you learned it, or when you started to intuitively use it.

It's like walking, another subconscious process. If I asked you how you walk across a room you can't really tell me. You can't describe in detail which muscles you contract, for how long a duration and what intensity, and which order you fire those muscles in. It's all automatically handled by the fast processing speed of the subconscious. As I'm sure you know it's much faster than the slow critical thinking part of the mind. It's fast, but it has drawbacks, side effects such as a lack of critical thinking ability. You don't have to know how to walk, you just automatically do it. You learned how when you were an infant. Similarly you don't have to know how to be empathic, you just automatically do it, and you learned how at some point in your development, likely many years ago and taught by a caring adult, parent, teacher, sibling, friend, or whomever.

That's a really cool story and thanks for sharing it.

I am writing a very concrete argument which is clearly somewhat hyperbolic and drawing artificial distinctions. Hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle.

I think you already started my next argument. The "source" of your empathy isn't your story. That was the first remembrance of your conscious awareness of it and a time where you were, in a formal learning setting, guided to utilize it and increase your awareness of it. And it made an impact. Which is great, although I don't think you were "taught" empathy.

As you allude to, it is developmental. It comes from a preverbal state wherein the infant cannot distinguish the boundaries between self and the outside world. Therefore, to facilitate a primitive understanding of the world that allows them to have stability, they must project their own unacceptable impulses on to others. And similarly they must also introject the confusing behaviors of important developmental objects because it is more unacceptable to believe the object that they are fully dependent on might sometimes not be reliable.

In empathy, we use those skills to project our own emotions on to others than introject our observations of them to understand how someone might feel and what might generate similar behavior within you. While this is unconscious or "intuitive" as you suggest, you can become consciously aware of the process and also consciously direct yourself to utilize it.


And here is where I want to be cautious about the point I am making. While I was taught that formally in higher education, it is meaningless words to the actual act of empathy if I do not practice it. And I do not need to know any of that in order to practice it, just as your grade school self did not. The reason I am being so picky about this is because one might think they have become an expert in something through formal education when in fact they are not, and that is a great source of potential disastrous rationalization when you hold someone's life in your hands. I do not do police work, but in medicine I see all around me and fight within me the struggle to not rationalize our natural deficits in caring for others because we posses the knowledge and station to presume we are perfect experts in doing so. The temptation to rationalize this is so strong, because often to provide the best care we must set apart our own needs as people, to have our time respected, to get enough sleep, to have an ability to do a million things, to be liked, etc. etc.

 

[disappoint]

That's a really cool story and thanks for sharing it.

I am writing a very concrete argument which is clearly somewhat hyperbolic and drawing artificial distinctions. Hopefully we can meet somewhere in the middle.

I think you already started my next argument. The "source" of your empathy isn't your story. That was the first remembrance of your conscious awareness of it and a time where you were, in a formal learning setting, guided to utilize it and increase your awareness of it. And it made an impact. Which is great, although I don't think you were "taught" empathy.

As you allude to, it is developmental. It comes from a preverbal state wherein the infant cannot distinguish the boundaries between self and the outside world. Therefore, to facilitate a primitive understanding of the world that allows them to have stability, they must project their own unacceptable impulses on to others. And similarly they must also introject the confusing behaviors of important developmental objects because it is more unacceptable to believe the object that they are fully dependent on might sometimes not be reliable.

In empathy, we use those skills to project our own emotions on to others than introject our observations of them to understand how someone might feel and what might generate similar behavior within you. While this is unconscious or "intuitive" as you suggest, you can become consciously aware of the process and also consciously direct yourself to utilize it.


And here is where I want to be cautious about the point I am making. While I was taught that formally in higher education, it is meaningless words to the actual act of empathy if I do not practice it. And I do not need to know any of that in order to practice it, just as your grade school self did not. The reason I am being so picky about this is because one might think they have become an expert in something through formal education when in fact they are not, and that is a great source of potential disastrous rationalization when you hold someone's life in your hands. I do not do police work, but in medicine I see all around me and fight within me the struggle to not rationalize our natural deficits in caring for others because we posses the knowledge and station to presume we are perfect experts in doing so. The temptation to rationalize this is so strong, because often to provide the best care we must set apart our own needs as people, to have our time respected, to get enough sleep, to have an ability to do a million things, to be liked, etc. etc.

Thank you for a very informative post.

My question now is do you think it's possible to teach someone to have empathy if they once took part in unempathetic behavior?

I believe it is.

I've never taken a golf swing in my life. If I tried to do it, I would be awful at it at first, because I don't know how. With the proper training however, and enough practice, it is conceivable I could develop a great golf swing. Once that level of proficiency is achieved, my golf swing would be largely subconscious. Much like walking, I wouldn't think about how to do it. I would just automatically do it. There is no time for the conscious mind to slowly figure out what to do when proficient. When still learning yes it would be a conscious endeavor. But once proficient it would have to be intuitive.

Similarly I submit that becoming intuitively empathetic can be taught, learned and practiced until reaching a level of intuition. Do you agree?

 

[interchange]

My question now is do you think it's possible to teach someone to have empathy if they once took part in unempathetic behavior?

If I change wording from "teach someone to have empathy" to "teach someone to utilize more regularly both consciously directed and unconsciously automatic", then of course.

Prior unempathetic behavior is pretty meaningless in this regard. It is controversial to say that anyone lacks capacity for empathy completely. Forgetting the rare idea of a true sociopath, most of us regularly use some degree of empathy.

It is not controversial to say, however, that none of us aren't with extreme regularity engaging in unempathtic behavior very often. This is not a criticism either.

I've never taken a golf swing in my life. If I tried to do it, I would be awful at it at first, because I don't know how. With the proper training however, and enough practice, it is conceivable I could develop a great golf swing. Once that level of proficiency is achieved, my golf swing would be largely subconscious. Much like walking, I wouldn't think about how to do it. I would just automatically do it. There is no time for the conscious mind to slowly figure out what to do when proficient. When still learning yes it would be a conscious endeavor. But once proficient it would have to be intuitive.

Motor skills and empathy to me aren't neurologically comparable, but to be fair that is not either based on science. The metaphor, if not physically, would match observationally. It would be interesting to apply what we have learned about becoming an "expert" to the skill of empathy, to see if it holds just as similarly as for golf.

Similarly I submit that becoming intuitively empathetic can be taught, learned and practiced until reaching a level of intuition. Do you agree?

I don't hold a judgment on this, as I don't really recognize the importance of "intuitive" as you seem to. Nearly all of our mental functioning is happening without our observation. Whether empathy is operating in these scenarios with observing ego supervision or without -- I don't think it matters. I will say, in regards to the idea of learning theory/being an expert, observation and "deliberate practice" as it is called are essential to improvement, and similarly developing ability for automatic functioning or "a level of intuition" as you call it are both important here, but I would not confidently state that the latter ought to be either a goal or a marker of competence.

 

[IronWing]

4. Higher the most intelligent people you can find.

<Whistling>

 

[disappoint]

I don't hold a judgment on this, as I don't really recognize the importance of "intuitive" as you seem to.

I think you're right. At first I was concerned that empathy can be faked with conscious awareness but not with subconscious control. Then I realized that perhaps faking it can also be practiced by those inclined to do so to the point of subconscious control.

 

[Blanky]

Wow. We clearly need somebody watching the watchers. Preferably an independent body and one protected by influence.


https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-futu...conspiring-fabricate-criminal-charges-against

It's fucking incredible. These guys should be fired immediately and charged, but instead the wall of blue protects them and puts up walls. What has the governor said about this? All three should be relieved of duty and charged with criminal offenses.

 

[Blue_Max]

Its one step.

1. Giving police the deep knowledge about the human condition via 4 year degree.

2. Nationalize the police force and training. Bad apples cant slide around.

3. Focus training on nonlethal responses.

4. Higher the most intelligent people you can find.

This problem will take 20 years to fix.

Everyone needs to watch the movie "Demolition Man" right now. Stormy proposes the police force become just as pleasant (and ineffectual) as the film.

 

[JSt0rm]

in your all or nothing black or white simple mind that is true.

 

[interchange]

I think you're right. At first I was concerned that empathy can be faked with conscious awareness but not with subconscious control. Then I realized that perhaps faking it can also be practiced by those inclined to do so to the point of subconscious control.

You are saying something important here, but I'd remove the words "faking it". We all use disavowal defenses to protect ourselves from things that are not compatible with our view of ourselves. I'd think being a racist asshole who shot an unarmed man for being black would be something that most people would have to defend themselves from. Depending on the character of the person, these operations include a whole variety of levels of insight into someone's contribution to a situation.

What is also important to recognize here is that, while these defensive operations are sometimes producing disastrous consequences, people are really always just doing the best they can at any given time. That's a real challenge, because when shit goes wrong, we want to hold someone responsible. My concern, though, is that this response hasn't improved the situation. Really, it certainly feels like tensions are merely increasing. It would be false to call this causal on available data, but I feel it behooves us to examine a possible relationship.

Personally, I feel as though racial tensions between the public and the police are driven in large part by expectations of antagonism by both parties. Despite the justification of such an expectation, putting enhanced pressure on a person rarely enables them to utilize more mature defenses to manage a situation.

And there is then the question of should we feel so critical about our police for escalating situations with deadly consequences. It is sometimes quite important that someone be able to take a dangerous situation and respond in a way to protect themselves including taking the life of another, and subsequently to not have your entire view of yourself shattered by the consequences of such an action. Police are constantly being asked to engage in encounters with this potential and to be able to adapt based on limited information. The ability to do so depends on a person's character structure, and the police select for that character as much as that character self-selects themselves for police (or similar) work. If we expect otherwise, would then our police freeze and endanger themselves when there is ambiguity? Or would they develop severe PTSD as a consequence of acting appropriately to available information with tragic results?

This is where the answers get fuzzy, but I feel as though we can build flexibility of character without changing the character structure needed to respond to dangerous situations. And that training police to utilize empathy actively would be an important intervention.

That is an interesting request for the police force, perhaps a restated version of anything like diversity training, Psychology degrees, etc.

Here's the rub, though. I see so many here and elsewhere struggle to have an empathic response to both the police engaging in dangerous work and for the people who are harmed as a result of that dangerous work. Instead, we fight constantly to find the answer to one question: did the police act badly, or did the person provoke the police and deserve to be harmed?

I think it's imperative to set aside that judgment and deal with the ambiguity that results. Making any sort of suggestion that police ought to become greater experts in such a skill when they are the ones risking their lives for the public rings awful hollow if we do not approach it from a point where we challenge ourselves to do the same. It is possible to have compassion for someone, even if they are doing something wrong to the point in which it poses threat to you. If the public and the police practice this together, then I think change may occur.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Very true unfortunately. There are bad judges, priests, politicians, teachers, etc. And like the saying says, the bad acts of a few outweigh the good acts of many. There are bad people in every profession, its just that most don't deal with public and are able to take away someones rights and arrest them. With the thousands (millions?) of dealings per day the cops do, there are going to be ones where they do stupid shit like this, or make bad decisions.

That being said I read down to where they were quoted as saying they were going to make up a story about him waiving the gun around to get a charge on him. I didn't read further or see if there was audio. That's all I needed to read and if true, I have zero problems with them be fired. If they're going to break the law willingly, they are no longer employed. Of course giving them a proper investigation and all, but it sure seems like they're guilty. I think cops should be held to a higher standard than the average Joe. As to this guy, it seems like they know him from previous dealings, and seems like an antagonist. They gave him just what he wanted. I don't have a problem with the DUI checks, or him holding up a sign warning people if done legally.



Really ignorant and dumb post. Not to mention wrong.

You confuse doing their jobs correctly with being "good". Are cops that shield bad cops, good cops?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I agree it shouldn't mean death should come to someone simply by being upset in front of a cop. However it can lead to that if the person doesn't listen and has a weapon, reaches inside their pockets, making a threatening maneuver, etc. It simply is not realistic to expect cops to wait until they are being shot at (or something equal) to fire their weapon back. You can't always talk someone out of what they want to do, and they may already be in the act that requires cops to fire their weapon. Do you have proof that cops won't make it in "real courses"? No, just more slamming of cops as per usual. Cops who make bad shoots need to be punished. More training and new procedures may need to be mandatory, obviously something needs to happen. Unfortunately there are going to be mistakes made, there are in every job. Sadly when cops make them they can result in deaths.

You can't say, shoot first, ask questions later, but if decide later that you were wrong to we are going to nail your ass to the wall.

 

[interchange]

You can't say, shoot first, ask questions later, but if decide later that you were wrong to we are going to nail your ass to the wall.

Punishing people for mistakes rarely makes those mistakes less frequent. You might collect data otherwise, but the more likely explanation is that you've instead taught people to cover up their mistakes. Sometimes this crashes fantastically such as the Atlanta public schools cheating scandal.

If you strive alternatively to create a culture that values reporting mistakes so they can be learned from, things might improve. Especially considering that the important problems are most likely unintentional system problems rather than individual bad actors.

 

[Kwatt]

Are cops that shield bad cops, good cops?

No, the ones that cover for the bad ones are worse. I don't think there are many "bad" cops. But, if the "good" cops did not cover for them or just turn a blind eye to them. The "bad" cops could not exist at all. Or would not last long at the very least.

"Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not fear friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist because of their silent consent." Bruno Jasienski

 

[Pipeline 1010]

By now, there are literally thousands of cops across the U.S. who know about this story. Have any of them arrested these bad cops? Certainly there are good cops out there who won't let a fraternal order come between them and doing the right thing, no? Any of them? At all?

 

[Ackmed]

You can't say, shoot first, ask questions later, but if decide later that you were wrong to we are going to nail your ass to the wall.

Is that what I said? No, I didn't. I said how the person acts, goes a long way. Keeping hands in pockets, making erratic movements, pointing something at cops, not listening to commands. These things will get you shot. It's simply unreasonable to ask a cop to wait to get shot at, before shooting in defense of themselves or others. Is that what I said? No, I didn't. I said how the person acts, goes a long way. Keeping hands in pockets, making erratic movements, pointing something at cops, not listening to commands. These things will get you shot.

You confuse doing their jobs correctly with being "good". Are cops that shield bad cops, good cops?

Doing their jobs correctly does make them good cops. Why would you think I consider cops who protect bad cops as good? I've never said such a thing. I'd consider them bad obviously. And if found out, punished. For contributing to whatever crime thru helped cover up, and fired on the spot. There is zero room for cops who knowingly commit crimes, it makes the whole force look bad and contributes to the problem. I've said before cops should be held to a higher standard, and punished more harshly than average citizens for the same crime.

 

[bshole]

Really the smart ones go into the fbi. We know cops are old football players and average level "bros".

You are correct there. It is really hard to get into FBI. I applied to the FBI and made it through the first stage. I did very well in that stage which involved a test to see how well you could recall data about a crime. It also had a questionnaire which attempted to see if you were attracted to bling/partying. They called me for the 2nd stage which involved an interview with 6 agents and a lie detector. Since I had lied my ass off on the questionnaire I bailed out on that part.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Is that what I said? No, I didn't. I said how the person acts, goes a long way. Keeping hands in pockets, making erratic movements, pointing something at cops, not listening to commands. These things will get you shot. It's simply unreasonable to ask a cop to wait to get shot at, before shooting in defense of themselves or others. Is that what I said? No, I didn't. I said how the person acts, goes a long way. Keeping hands in pockets, making erratic movements, pointing something at cops, not listening to commands. These things will get you shot.

We also should not be at 'put your hands in your pockets and get killed'. We have to have some sort of middle ground, and it absolutely has to be more along the lines of making cops wait before shooting. They at the very minimum need to positively identify a deadly weapon before using deadly force themselves. Reaching into a pocket or making a sudden move is not enough. Does this mean we might lose some more cops? Absolutely it does. But that is what their job is, to put their lives in danger to protect innocent citizens. Not to kill innocent citizens to protect themselves.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

Keeping hands in pockets, making erratic movements, pointing something at cops, not listening to commands. These things will get you shot.

That right there is a HUGE problem. If our military can't do this to foreign terroristic enemies, then why should we allow our police to do this to our own actual citizens? Keep in mind cops are paid like 2-4x what our military are paid. At this point I'd rather have our lesser paid and less shooty military policing our streets than our sissy cops who will shoot you over "not listening to commands" or "making erratic movements". As a citizen and taxpayer, I don't want to pay cops to shoot people who do those things.

It's simply unreasonable to ask a cop to wait to get shot at, before shooting in defense of themselves or others.

We're asking cops to POSITIVELY identify an actual gun, not just shoot because there "might" be a threat. If you are going to take a life in my name, then you better be fucking positive there is an actual threat. Otherwise get a different job.

Doing their jobs correctly does make them good cops.

Doing a job correctly doesn't make you a good anything. Doing the RIGHT THING makes you good. History has taught us that plenty of people have committed murder, rape, torture, and other atrocities because it is their job. They are still evil. I expect my cops to be smart enough to know that something is wrong even if that action is covered under their "policy". Maybe you think that cops are just too stupid to make these kinds of decisions.

Why would you think I consider cops who protect bad cops as good? I've never said such a thing. I'd consider them bad obviously. And if found out, punished. For contributing to whatever crime thru helped cover up, and fired on the spot. There is zero room for cops who knowingly commit crimes, it makes the whole force look bad and contributes to the problem. I've said before cops should be held to a higher standard, and punished more harshly than average citizens for the same crime.

Where are the good cops who came to arrest these guys who tried to fabricate false charges against the person this thread is about? Where are they? Why aren't hundreds of them coming out to arrest these pieces of shit who are making all cops look bad? Why is the union backing these guys? Where are these good cops at and why are they silent?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

We also should not be at 'put your hands in your pockets and get killed'. We have to have some sort of middle ground, and it absolutely has to be more along the lines of making cops wait before shooting. They at the very minimum need to positively identify a deadly weapon before using deadly force themselves. Reaching into a pocket or making a sudden move is not enough. Does this mean we might lose some more cops? Absolutely it does. But that is what their job is, to put their lives in danger to protect innocent citizens. Not to kill innocent citizens to protect themselves.

I'm wondering if this really will actually cause cops to die. If you have your gun already pointed at somebody and they make a move, you've already got the bead on them, you're already aimed, and the second you see a gun you can fire off a few rounds before the gun can even get aimed at you. Has there ever been a case where cops had guns aimed at someone and he was able to pull a gun and kill them before they could react? If not then why are we even discussing this?

 

[Pipeline 1010]

You are correct there. It is really hard to get into FBI. I applied to the FBI and made it through the first stage. I did very well in that stage which involved a test to see how well you could recall data about a crime. It also had a questionnaire which attempted to see if you were attracted to bling/partying. They called me for the 2nd stage which involved an interview with 6 agents and a lie detector. Since I had lied my ass off on the questionnaire I bailed out on that part.

The United States seems to have dodged quite the bullet.

 

[interchange]

I really think these ideas of good cops and bad cops is a very damaging simplification. Arguing about what constitutes a good cop or a bad cop is not getting us anywhere.

 

[stockwiz]

I'm pretty nice until I'm messed with. I respect law enforcement and consider myself reasonably law abiding but if I was ever crossed or screwed over by an officer in a way that cost me considerable money or put me in jail I can see myself getting revenge on that officer in such a way that they'd be sorry they ever crossed me. If more people did this when someone of questionable character crossed their path maybe we wouldn't have so many people of questionable character in our society. Bottom line... be nice to me, I'll be nice back. Cross me, and you're going to pay. Same thing if say my wife cheated on me and then proceeded to leave in a very cocky, non apologetic manner.. if more mates simply took justice into their own hands instead of being a pushover maybe we'd have less cheaters in our society.

There are good and bad in every profession and cops get an unfairly bad rap because of the bad ones which can number in the 10-20% range, perhaps a bit higher than some professions.. but power does strange things to people.. I'd imagine the corporate world and the top 1% are filled with criminals.

 

[disappoint]

This is where the answers get fuzzy, but I feel as though we can build flexibility of character without changing the character structure needed to respond to dangerous situations. And that training police to utilize empathy actively would be an important intervention.

That is an interesting request for the police force, perhaps a restated version of anything like diversity training, Psychology degrees, etc.

Here's the rub, though. I see so many here and elsewhere struggle to have an empathic response to both the police engaging in dangerous work and for the people who are harmed as a result of that dangerous work. Instead, we fight constantly to find the answer to one question: did the police act badly, or did the person provoke the police and deserve to be harmed?

I think it's imperative to set aside that judgment and deal with the ambiguity that results. Making any sort of suggestion that police ought to become greater experts in such a skill when they are the ones risking their lives for the public rings awful hollow if we do not approach it from a point where we challenge ourselves to do the same. It is possible to have compassion for someone, even if they are doing something wrong to the point in which it poses threat to you. If the public and the police practice this together, then I think change may occur.

This is such a good point that you're making. Rarely do people look inwardly to improve society, instead choosing to lash out at others' mistakes. We need to realize that our own behavior is far more controllable by ourselves than the behavior of others.

 

[interchange]

This is such a good point that you're making. Rarely do people look inwardly to improve society, instead choosing to lash out at others' mistakes. We need to realize that our own behavior is far more controllable by ourselves than the behavior of others.

Thanks! Although trying to get people here to think that way is like herding cats, which makes me see my presence here is at least part of my character defense of a moral masochist -- to displace my anger at these police happenings on to people here for not doing their part to change it, even though it's clear I should expect little efficacy and much frustration in doing so by choosing this audience.