NOTE: In the interest of full disclosure, I am a biracial Chinese-American with Black family and family in law enforcement.
Law enforcement officers differ as much as any massive group of people. Generalizing them is not reasonable, just as it would not be for groups like medical doctors and nurses, for example. Though I have both in my family, it troubles me not at all to condemn bad actors.
Some of this I suspect is the culture of science where you won’t make it long without embracing blunt criticism, on what you thought was perfect.
I must rein it in sometimes—not everyone enjoys impromptu peer-review.
It is unspeakably freeing though, saying exactly what you think and see, knowing your peer won’t misunderstand because you’ve handed them the precise means by which their work will be even better.
Take the case of Dr. Christopher Duntsch, who repeatedly practiced while intoxicated. He maimed and killed people, and when no one stopped him, he kept going. Those around him covered it up, said nothing, or fired him with no formal action.
One man hurt so many people, and he could not have done it without the many silent approvals from peers. The people he hurt might have been spared if his peers had done the tough thing and stopped him. That failure cost lives, as it so often does when we stay silent in the face of corruption.
Not everyone is cut out for calling people out on unacceptable behavior. That’s OK; don’t take a position where lives depend on it, though. Accepting power means accepting that duty.
Police officers, like medical doctors, have a responsibility to use their power honorably. Accepting power and hurting those helpless to stop it is perverse, regardless of who does it.
It is precisely because of decent people who share the same title, that those sullying the entire field infuriate me. I expect good medical doctors to be angrier still—not less.
A doctor defending a dereliction of duty, while expecting unconditional support from the people at their mercy, is jarringly selfish. It says a person lacks empathy and maturity, that they think little of their peers, and that neither the bad actors nor the enablers believe they should be capable of more.
It is for honorable people I have known that I will never lump them together.
What does it say when someone expects blind support, even when they have been wrong? What does it say if they expect your defense for their reprehensible peers?
That you think as little of me as you do yourself, it would seem.
It is a sad reality that we have become so unable to admit we have been wrong that we will demand those around us to stoop down with us. Not holding people accountable is ultimately an act of selfishness that hurts everyone.
For the people of good moral character, especially principled police officers and medical doctors alike, I will never accept less, nor will I allow corrupt people to use respectable individuals as a shield, manipulating us into thinking opposition to depraved acts equals opposition to all.
It doesn’t; that’s obvious.
The choice isn’t between police and people who suffered injustice. It’s between honorable people who stand against abuse of power, and those seeking to manipulate us into standing in the way of them receiving justice.
This is the opposite of saying all police are bad. It is the people who lash out at those who distinguish good police from the bad that implies they are all the same. Why else would you defend it? I will not allow lesser people incapable of taking personal responsibility to define the good people I have known.
- Networks boosting coronavirus disinformation seize on new vaccine requirements
- US failure to predict Taliban takeover may — in part — be because we underestimated Taliban propaganda one last time
- Strategic Lies: Deliberate untruths used as a political tactic – new study
- ‘Deprogramming’ QAnon followers ignores free will and why they adopted the beliefs in the first place
- Oxford study shows higher risk of blood clots from COVID-19 than vaccines