Source?
I have a close relative that’s a cop, he’s a really good person, father and husband. I’ve known several other cops and never knew a truly bad person.
back
3 comments
There's an old report (like from the 1990s) on this that put the DV rates at 40%. That's probably high but it's the source for a lot of the "cops beat their wives" claims.
A fundamental problem with cops is the thin blue line is very real. The rise of cameras on cops shows pretty clearly that a decent number of cops bend over backwards to protect their own. I find it pretty easy to believe that cops won't arrest their fellow officers on a DV call.
Police unions fight HARD to stop any sort of accountability or tracking of misbehavior of cops.
That's what the ACAB sentiment is about. It's not that all cops beat their wives or make up reasons to pull over minorities. It's that the ones who don't do that still cover for the ones who do.
That study is extremely misrepresented. It looked at household conflict rates, but the internet imagined that every act of violence was perpetrated by the officer, and not the spouse. In fact, the study found that the spouses of officers reported a higher rate of aggressive acts against their spouses, than officers did against their spouses.
The researchers also didn't conduct these studies on non-officers in the same location, in order to determine a baseline rate.
You also have the fact that "violent behavior" was not defined by the researches, so it left everyone to use their own personal definition. Maybe people thought violent behavior was yelling, or slamming doors. Is that domestic violence? Maybe, but I think when most people hear domestic violence they imagine a man beating up his wife.
And then there is the issue that these studies only involved a few hundred people from a specific location, like 40 years ago.
Fine, but where are the studies showing the conclusion is false?
The conclusion is as true as the study shows. The conclusion was based on the questionnaire given to cops and their spouses in 1991 in some small town, those were the results. It's on other people who want to expand that to argue that 40% of cops beat their wives or whatever to show that it's true.
While I don't disagree with the sentiment, since you have a friend who's a cop I'm compelled to ask the uncomfortable question, is an otherwise good cop who protects bad cops still a good cop?
That’s a good question.
You know how all the people taking part in a robbery get charged with murder if just one of them kills someone?
I’d view it like that. A cop that covers up corruption for a partner is guilty of corruption. A cop that covers up a DUI carries a similar amount of guilt.
A cop that exercises ‘professional courtesy’ to overlook a minor traffic violation? Same negligible amount of guilt.
I think it seems about right.
You aren't acknowledging an awareness of culture or systemic issues. Cops that remain on the force despite being aware of the excessive force, rampant theft, corruption, institutional racism and lack of accountability choose to accept and implicitly support that system for their own benefit. That's why people use the metaphor of "bad apples" to refer to police. You can't remain a good person in an evil system.
I'm sure Derek Chauvin was a real nice guy to his friends and neighbors, but he still murdered George Floyd in cold blood. Cops are great at compartmentalizing, it's part of the job.
The problem for people like that is that they're working in a system that rewards and mandates bad behavior. You want your traffic tickets to stick so you can make quota? Ticket more black and poor people. They won't contest the tickets as much. Drug arrest and conviction quota? Find people who can't afford an attorney, they'll get an overworked PD and likely take a fast plea bargain.
Good people are responsive to the incentives we've created for them also.