Police Glorification PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 15 September 2008
Written by Connor Boyack
The glorification of our police force, the fear used to achieve such an end, and the elevation of police work over the other needs of society should all be repudiated and exposed for the fraudulent fallacies that they are...

photo credit: !!WaynePhotoGuy

One of the notable attributes of a society degrading into a police state is the duality of both an intense fear [2, 3, 4] and an exaggerated glorification of its police force. As the force is increasingly adored by those who feel protected by them, they are supported in their continual acquisition of armaments, equipment, and training, all this of course helping instill fear in both would-be enemies and the populace at large.

While the most common police slogan is “to protect and to serve”, one of the core elements of police work is the use of fear to intimidate those with whom you must interact. As one example, consider the “Hercules teams” used in New York City for the sole purpose of startling those who witness them:

“The response we usually get is, ‘Holy s—!’” [NYPD Detective Abad] Nieves says. “That’s the reaction we want. We are in the business of scaring people–we just want to scare the right people.”

Such a display of power and might naturally leads a not-so-well-equipped group of people to respect them and fulfill their every request. This principle is likewise implemented by school bullies and gangs. In all such scenarios, those who use muscle to mandate respect often succeed (at least in the short term). Though based in fear, this respect and honor increases if the individuals feel protected by the bully; so long as the bully is on your side, he’s your friend.

Thus, the door opens to glorification, where those who decide to make a career out of police work are treated like Saints. Utah’s own Attorney General is one of those who seemingly worship the ground upon which the police walks, memorializing the deaths of those who have fallen in the line of duty.

Insofar as these individuals were legitimately serving the public and discharging their duty with honor and virtue, then their loss of life should be mourned. But is it appropriate to so elevate our police force above the normal citizenry that every injury or death incurred is mourned with statues, signs, fanfare, and flag-draped coffins?

Individuals who voluntarily choose to make a career out of police work do so knowing the inherent risk that is in the job. But does the same not apply to electricians, pilots, and construction workers? It may seem odd to compare a policeman’s job with these others, but consider the following table that, while nine years outdated, puts into perspective the risk of police work:

U.S.
Department of Labor
Occupational Fatalities per 100,000
Year 1999
Commercial
Fishermen
162
Timber
Cutters
154
Air
Pilots
65
Construction
Laborers
37
Garbage
Collectors
34
Truck
Drivers
28
Electricians
12
Gardeners
(non farm)
11
Police
11
Carpenters
7
(source)

 

This table illustrates how police work is not as dangerous as certain other careers. None of these jobs are compulsory, and so an individual choosing either one of these fields of work faces some risk to life and limb. Shall we start erecting statues to fallen florists and fisherman?

Those who scoff at such a suggestion might claim that a policeman is serving the public by protecting them and coming to their aid when called upon, unlike the individuals in the other professions listed above. This is a fallacious argument, for like the carpenter and pilot, the policeman is simply rendering a service to his employer—you. Policemen are hired and paid by the public to fulfill a legitimate need. The same holds true for any other enterprise. If I felt my life was under a higher threat, I might hire a bodyguard. If I felt my life was threatened by obesity, I might hire a personal trainer. Whatever the situation may be, it boils down to a simple economic exchange by which a service is rendered and payment made.

It should also be mentioned that the decision in Warren v. District of Columbia clarified that the police are not duty-bound to come to your rescue as you plea. The Court claimed that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen” (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)). As ludicrous as this may sound, what the Court is telling you is that despite hiring the police to render you the service of protection, they are not obligated to fulfill their end of the agreement. Or, in other words, the police are legally justified in not honoring the implicit contract that exists between them and the people.

I do not honor the police any more than I honor the hardworking entrepreneur, the chef at the local bakery, or the diligent college professor. Any individual who works hard to fulfill a moral need of society is equally entitled to our praise and appreciation (not to mention the fact that all are compensated for their time and energy). The glorification of our police force, the fear used to achieve such an end, and the elevation of police work over the other needs of society should all be repudiated and exposed for the fraudulent fallacies that they are.

Connor Boyack is a blogger , husband, web designer, Latter-day Saint, constitutionalist, paleocon, classical liberal, preparedness practitioner, budding philanthropist, and master's student of political economy. He's from Poway, CA but lives in Happy Valley.


Comments (2)add comment

ed42 said:

I do not honor the police at all:

If I don’t pay (in part) for the salary of a policeman and/or his rulers, that policeman (or his brothers in blue) will take, by force, from me the results of my life’s labor. If I resist this immoral taking they will put me in a cage. If I fight back they will execute me.

If I grow a God created herb that doesn’t meet the cop’s ruler’s approval the cops will steal/cage/kill me. If I participate in a voluntary exchange with another competent adult that is not approved I will feel their boots on my neck.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
September 15, 2008
Votes: -1

Melody said:

I agree entirely with the principle of limited government, and I recognize that those who have chosen law enforcement as their career are performing a service for payment, but every man I know who has served his country in this way has chosen his profession because of an inner desire to protect and preserve freedom. We entrust our law enforcement to protect our freedom. Being worthy of that trust is deserving of great honor. Regrettably, some have tarnished their service by breaking that trust, but they are far outnumbered by those who are faithful to it. Do we not value our freedom more than indoor plumbing or groceries readily available at the supermarket? There is honor in all honest work, but there is something more that is deserved by those who protect our way of life. You should take issue with your government on the laws which do not preserve our freedoms, rather than those who honorably work to protect our freedoms.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
November 04, 2008
Votes: +0

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize
underline
strike
url
image
quote
quote
smile
wink
laugh
grin
angry
sad
shocked
cool
tongue
kiss
cry
smaller | bigger

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Newsletter Subscribe
Name:
Email:


Recent Articles
awakening to our awful situation mp3
Jack Monnett's Awakening to Our Awful Situation now available as an MP3 audio Book. Order Today!

Latest Blog
Most Popular
debt free software