Policing Is Hard Work

[Preety_India]

 

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's a good point that perhaps criminal records should not disclosed to employers.

 

Criminal records are absolutely important. 

If I were an employer I wouldn't risk employing a person with a criminal record, because I don't want to lose my hard work, I don't want my business to suffer, I don't want my credentials to be tarnished, my service quality to deteriorate and create a safety concern for my other hard working employees. 

Maybe this is just my orange brain at work but I shouldn't be judged for wanting the best for my business. I can't be expected to be Green when it comes to crime and criminal records. I have to find a wholesome balance between Green and Orange here 

Of course I'm empathetic in other areas of life, and I embody Green but I am also a savvy Orange when it comes to professionalism and getting stuff done. 

I think criminal records are absolutely essential for

• Business, especially small businesses 
• Relationships. You don't want to be misled or lied to 
• If you renting your home to someone. You might want to know their background. 

I think the solution can be creating government owned business or non profit businesses that give opportunities to people with a criminal past. 

But normal everyday folks should not be expected to suffer or pay the price for someone else's karma. 

This is just my opinion. Doesn't mean that I don't want former criminals to be accommodated. But not at an expense. 

 

[Leo Gura]

@Preety_India It's fundamentally discriminatory. People are capable of changing and outgrowing their past. The criminal already served his time. No need to punish him further after that unless you want him to stay a criminal -- which will come back to bite you.

[Preety_India]

@Leo Gura people are also capable of repeating the same offenses and crimes. 

Where do you draw the line and how? 

 

[Preety_India]

 

5 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Preety_India It's fundamentally discriminatory. People are capable of changing and outgrowing their past. The criminal already served his time. No need to punish him further after that unless you want him to stay a criminal -- which will come back to bite you.

Yea that's a good point. 

 

[Forestluv]

The state I live in legalized cannabis a couple years ago. There has been a debate about wether those imprisoned for cannabis possession should be released and whether all records of cannabis possession should be expunged. I say expunge all the records for possession, yet a lot of conservatives say that “it was a crime back when they got arrested for possession and the records should stay”.

This is an example of why evolution can proceed slowly. GenZ and Millennials are like “It’s totally stupid for anyone to have cannabis possession as a criminal record”. Yet most of Gen X and all the Boomers were conditioned with “The War on Drugs”, “This is you brain on drugs”, “Just say no”,”Pot growers are dangerous criminals”,  “Cannabis is a gateway drug”, etc. And Gen X and Boomers have more power to write the rules than GenZ and Millennials - yet that will change as we move along. . . 

[Eren Eeager]

@Preety_India REHABILITATION programs are the solution. there must be a whole system to rehabilitate criminals during their stay at prison and after they get released. a person who succeed in getting rehabilitated gets his criminal history clear. we need a prison system that has two main goals either protecting society from this criminal or rehabilitate this person into being an effective member of society

[Roy]

1 hour ago, Preety_India said:

I can't be expected to be Green when it comes to crime and criminal records.

Not targeting you specifically Preety but rather this statement. This kind of resistance is specifically why this necessary progress is so hard to get in motion. Of course the details would have to be worked out and we'd have to be careful, but it takes courage to leap over your current intuitions and strongly held personal opinions and feelings.

[Forestluv]

38 minutes ago, Roy said:

Not targeting you specifically Preety but rather this statement. This kind of resistance is specifically why this necessary progress is so hard to get in motion. Of course the details would have to be worked out and we'd have to be careful, but it takes courage to leap over your current intuitions and strongly held personal opinions and feelings.

There could some type of policy that people that have committed crimes need to go through some type of clearance with psychologists and social workers before their crime is masked from employers. As well, it would only be masked from employers. Law enforcement and the judicial system would have access. Also, there could be exemptions for repeat offenders. For example, if someone got caught shoplifting and went through the rehabilitation process, no employer sees it. Yet if someone was caught three consecutive times for shoplifting, then an employer can see a mark. In general, I think a good start would be to give people a clean second chance if they do the time and rehabilitation. Yet perhaps not a clean fourth or fifth chance. I think this would be much easier to sell to Blue/Orange. Most people think we should give people a second chance. 

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@Leo Gura people are also capable of repeating the same offenses and crimes. 

Where do you draw the line and how? 

 

Of course it's a tough call. Which is why these issues remain unsolved.

[Preety_India]

 

Saw this video yesterday for the first time. Really good one. 

 

 

[Parththakkar12]

7 hours ago, Preety_India said:

@Leo Gura people are also capable of repeating the same offenses and crimes. 

Where do you draw the line and how? 

 

You leave it to the employer/leasing company to make their decision. It is a case by case decision. Take away their criminal record and look at the person the way they are, right now. Do you trust them? If yes, that's a trustworthy person irrespective of their past.

Just because some bureaucrats in uniforms decided you aren't trustworthy, doesn't mean it's true.

[Leo Gura]

Think about it, why aren't medical records disclosed to employers?

If someone had cancer, shouldn't the employer be told about it so that they could reject such an employee?

You can see how problematic that would be.

[Preety_India]

@Etherial Cat I don't think they get cleared. 

 

[Extreme Z7]

I think that many people who have experienced prison may possibly have had their life changed for the better because of it.

I'd much prefer listening to or maybe even employing someone who has spent years in prison and learned from the experience rather than someone who has lived an average life in a traditional conservative environment who thinks they're morally superior to criminals.

Check out this documentary if you have the time. It's one of my favorites and it really shows how someone with a criminal history can become a completely different person after (or sometimes even during) their sentence.

Just observe the way the guy talks and his body language.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Extreme Z7

[Godhead]

https://tuckbot.tv/#/watch/gzvmsr

[Preety_India]

 

I know policing is hard work. But do any of you think that this woman should stay a cop? 

My opinion is an absolute no no. She is emotionally unfit to be a cop. Her mental breakdown means that she can shoot a person out of emotion rather than judgement. I think the same thing happened in Chauvin's because he had been going through some personal tension in his life. 

I think when police officers show extreme emotions or they are going through some personal crisis, they should be either laid off with some compensation or given temporary break before bringing them on the force. But since this can be costly in terms of paid leave, I think the best idea it to fire them. 

 

 

 

 Cop Betty Shelby having an emotional breakdown during interrogation. 

 

 

 

 

Considering the rigors of a police job, if you look into the above cases and examples, it's easy to see that being a cop needs a mentally tough person who is not emotional but reasonable enough to understand human situations. This is tricky. Because most people are either overly emotional or not emotional at all. 

Now trying to make a distinction here between emotion and empathy. Often these are confused. It's not necessary for an empathetic person to have huge displays of emotions, crying and breaking down. Also the converse is equally true. Just because someone is being all emotional and crying or feeling sensitive doesn't automatically make them empathetic. The situation could be eliciting a temporary emotional response but feeling the sentiment of genuine empathy towards a person is not something as temporary as a 15 min cry. It is different. 

The gist of my point is that people who are high on emotion should be taken seriously and should not be hired as a cop. 

Cops need to be empathetic but also reasonable. 

They should be rational as well as reasonable. 

 

I think a cop should have these values. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2020 by Preety_India

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Preety_India said:

I think when police officers show extreme emotions or they are going through some personal crisis, they should be either laid off with some compensation or given temporary break before bringing them on the force. But since this can be costly in terms of paid leave, I think the best idea it to fire them. 

Considering the rigors of a police job, if you look into the above cases and examples, it's easy to see that being a cop needs a mentally tough person who is not emotional but reasonable enough to understand human situations. This is tricky. Because most people are either overly emotional or not emotional at all. 

I had a friend who was a pilot in the US coast guard. At one point, she went through a really hard breakup, which included stalking, and a bunch of childhood abuse issues came up. The coast guard “grounded” her from flying her plane. Yet not as punishment. She just wasn’t fit to fly her plane. They switched her to an office job and she got therapy. To me, it seemed like a supportive environment and she was able to fly again after a year. I think they key in this situation was they didn’t shame, stigmatize or marginalize her. Similar to a soldier with ptsd, shame, stigmatization and ostracization make matters worse.

A police officer’s job is also highly stressful. They should be getting breaks and free counseling to help prevent nervous breakdowns and burnout. And perhaps they can rotate between relatively high stress and low stress duties. Yet culture is a important to. A cop that sees a counselor shouldn’t be shameD or stigmatized for being weak. It should be seen as a normal thing. I’ve noticed that in many areas of the U.S. there is a shame and minor stigmatization for seeing a psychologist. Seeing a “life coach” is fine. Yet a lot of people think seeing a psychologist means “there is something wrong with you”, especially for men. I know a lot of people that keep it a secret.

Regarding interrogations in which police officers unskillfully tried to impose their will and get a suspect to talk. They try to badger the person and break them down. Yet a different approach is with some sociopaths and mentally ill - it would be better for a detective or psychologist with training in criminal minds to do the interrogation. A good example is the interrogation with the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. The guy likely had some derangement, yet he also knew what was going on and was playing with the cops. The police interrogators were being being reasonable and trying to force the guy to have a reasonable conversation and the guy kept playing them. After about an hour,, the cop became frustrated and started screaming at him. I think a detective or psychologist trained In criminal minds could have had more success in playing this game.

 

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

Are criminal records never ever cleared in the USA? 

Some do, yet I don’t know exactly how it works. I’ve heard after a number of years without repeat offense some get masked from employers. And I don’t know if employers have access to all crimes - like if a DUI would show up. I’ve know people with minor infractions that were able to pass employer background checks. At my institution, ever person hired has to go through a background check performed by an independent party. We don’t know how far it goes back, what they have access to or what is in the report. I think only a couple people high up in my institution see it. We are only told that the person passed the check and are now a new employee.

[Preety_India]

 

23 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I had a friend who was a pilot in the US coast guard. At one point, she went through a really hard breakup, which included stalking, and a bunch of childhood abuse issues came up. The coast guard “grounded” her from flying her plane. Yet not as punishment. She just wasn’t fit to fly her plane. They switched her to an office job and she got therapy. To me, it seemed like a supportive environment and she was able to fly again after a year. I think they key in this situation was they didn’t shame, stigmatize or marginalize her. Similar to a soldier with ptsd, shame, stigmatization and ostracization make matters worse.

A police officer’s job is also highly stressful. They should be getting breaks and free counseling to help prevent nervous breakdowns and burnout. And perhaps they can rotate between relatively high stress and low stress duties. Yet culture is a important to. A cop that sees a counselor shouldn’t be shameD or stigmatized for being weak. It should be seen as a normal thing. I’ve noticed that in many areas of the U.S. there is a shame and minor stigmatization for seeing a psychologist. Seeing a “life coach” is fine. Yet a lot of people think seeing a psychologist means “there is something wrong with you”, especially for men. I know a lot of people that keep it a secret.

Regarding interrogations in which police officers unskillfully tried to impose their will and get a suspect to talk. They try to badger the person and break them down. Yet a different approach is with some sociopaths and mentally ill - it would be better for a detective or psychologist with training in criminal minds to do the interrogation. A good example is the interrogation with the guy who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. The guy likely had some derangement, yet he also knew what was going on and was playing with the cops. The police interrogators were being being reasonable and trying to force the guy to have a reasonable conversation and the guy kept playing them. After about an hour,, the cop became frustrated and started screaming at him. I think a detective or psychologist trained In criminal minds could have had more success in playing this game.

 

But you would at least agree that a person who is having a emotional breakdown should be kept off the duty for some time or laid off if they don't get better. Or would you rather want such people to stay on the job and others paying the price for their emotional outbursts. 

Also let's understand that women are more emotional than men. So hiring women for such jobs as cops and the military is still a controversial point in my mind. 

Now I'm not about stigmatizing or marginalizing people who want to seek therapy but citizens also reserve the right to question the sanity of public servants who serve them. It's natural to feel a sense of threat or fear when you see an emotionally distraught or mentally unstable person wearing a badge. That's why a lot of the comments under the video are people asking why the woman is still a cop. They are questioning her mental fitness for the job and I think they are being valid in their assertions. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to stigmatize her. They are just common folks showing legitimate concern for their safety. 

Of course I support the idea of a supportive working environment. The person can be fired from their active duty and maybe placed in another department where being emotional won't pose a safety threat 

[Forestluv]

54 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

But you would at least agree that a person who is having a emotional breakdown should be kept off the duty for some time or laid off if they don't get better. Or would you rather want such people to stay on the job and others paying the price for their emotional outbursts. 

I think it depends on the job and the degree of emotional breakdown. Some professions can handle emotional instability better than others. For a UFC fighter, emotional instability could actually be a good thing. It can be entertaining for fans and sell more tickets. Yet for a neurosurgeon, emotional instability is bad. We want neurosurgeons to be stable while performing surgery on people’s brains. 

I also think there is a certain amount of “keeping it together” that we all need to do to do our job. People go through breakups, divorces, have car accidents, pets die, loved ones in the hospital etc. and need to go to work. Everyone has some degree of difficulty in life we need to deal with as we continue working. While working, they need to try to set it aside the distress for a bit. Yet there are also times in which people need extra some relief time. Last week, one of my colleagues lost her husband to Covid. That is a extreme hardship. If she needs some time off to emotionally recover, she should get it. Yet if she lost her cat, she probably wouldn’t be given time off.

Policing is a particularly difficult job. It’s not like they are a car mechanic. The stakes are much higher with policing.

54 minutes ago, Preety_India said:

They are questioning her mental fitness for the job and I think they are being valid in their assertions. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are trying to stigmatize her. They are just common folks showing legitimate concern for their safety. 

I would place “mental fitness” for a job in a separate category than emotional episodes. I write a lot of evaluation letters for pre-med students. One of the sections involves mental fitness. If a student is highly anti-social, manipulative, emotionally hyper-sensitive, prone to anger outbursts etc., they will not score well in this section. It doesn’t matter if they have a 4.0 gpa. There comes a point in which the person is not mentally fit enough to do the job well.