CSS pop

Wednesday, June 10, 2020

when athority deflects.

deflection (logical context):

Search Results

Featured snippet from the web

Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
in conversation: 
Deflect is defined as to cause something to change direction, or to deter someone from his/her intended purpose. When all the attention is focused on you and you change the subject and get people to change what they are talking about, this is an example of a time when you deflect the conversation.

when authority such as law enforcement officers employ this tactic I think it has the potential to create very troublesome outcomes. 
The system if we at all assume sane seems to be based on the assumptions that
everyone has experience calling the police
everyone is born with an immutable conditioned response to call the police and right away.
the police will make reports for and against any individual equally and or are required to

the first two assumptions are against what we know about human behavior. the first is a pretty dark assumption as well. ie if from an early age calling the police was engrained and thats considered so typical we assume everyone knows exactly when and that its whats needed... well cutting some middle bits of logic, how effective can calling the police be if a child grew up repeatedly having to? we aren't born with it.
most behaviors of any sort are learned or conditioned, parents who abuse their children and especially when its mainly or only emotionally create a mental landscape of abuse is normal. if you look up children of npd parents, its stated all over that most take a long time to figure out anything is off. if externally there are few situations that involve police either reason to call or having them called on a person/growing person... when to call and what for (absent of all inputs like images of what abuse is by media and edu) its still a pretty merky maybe i should or doesnt come to mind at all.
in the deserving or otherwise case the police are mainly called on a child/teen/ before reaching that state the conditioned response is likely , bad things come from that action. aka regardless of fault or who did what that person is unlikely to think of it as a solution. 
then there is another cross-connected issue:
 selective enforcement based on liability from earlier actions (department or same officer) isnt a thing and the officers themselves will enforce nearly perfectly. perhaps this view is naive and thats not what they are there for at all but this is a whole other can of worms. 
this may or may not actually be a threat to the officer or department depending on laws. that said a perceived threat by any given officer based on earlier actions can still create the issue. the issue being someone who is abused but didnt call first is then told nothing is being done to them by the authority.
then theres the nature of the issue when police get involved in abuse with the human ability to error. the nature is many victims are hesitant to see it that way or gaslit to begin with. 
we know through out human history and independent of gender and race there has been a common issue with humans responding to abuse of others. this issue is a tendency to assume bad things dont happen to good people. another way to put it is that person must be lying or done something to deserve it. 
 id say its likely rooted in not wanting to process the fear of "if that happened to them am i safe?" and or a lot of people have bad things happen and suppress it until a new victim seeking their support or even just ear and external review to help with judging a situation as healthy/harmful/good/bad/gray/etc ...triggers the recollection of the listeners own surpressed trauma. if that was delt with by others blaming them, the listener is probably responding to the person comunicating the issue with laungage that makes it seem they are the subject of the words, but in reality it might be a recall of words the listener heard as non support/trauma added when they saught support in the past. aka victim blaming is a flashback or triggered rehash of earlier traumas the listener themselves endured and how they were delt with by people they sought support from. even absent of that i can see the "if that happened to them and no one stops it what if it happened to me? or am i safe" type thoughts creating a situation where the listener doesnt want to encoded and process that possibility so in stead substitutes the easier to deal with possibility that the reporter of the abuse must have deserved it 
the offshoots of whats collectively called "the feminist movement" have largely succeeded in putting the concept of "victim-blaming" into the psyche and lexicon of the public at large but at least from what ive seen its in a gendered concept. the same applies to "position of power" 
The combination means when the young are abused they often have no idea what a good solution is or that the police might be the right choice to resolve it. they might have every reason from personal experience not to call them or never done it in the past. 
combind this with officers possibly liable or thinking they might be for missteps in a case that sees continuing involvement and the human nature to deflect either way.
we create a situation where a possible abuse victim might not know when to call or whats abuse. they might be called on first and if the actions taken were at all of questionable legality you now have an officer or the force in a position its not favorable to reverse course. if one experiences the police used as weapons or falsely reported on and then deflecting while harming its further conditioning the response that their presence or involvement will only harm. at very least conditioning not to call. that doesnt mean they wont be called and through this clusterfuck that is reality for some (like it or not) there is the potential that police may become extensions of the abuser. 
as far as ive found there is also no requirement for them to file reports on every call. some courts as far as i have learned courts dont have access to police reports. but we all  know any encounter involving police may result in court. id argue this makes it more concerning. because id still wager (based on some recent experience) reports are shared with in a department. large departments and likely to reoccur family drama means a desire to brief all officers. id say with a lack of requirement to even file reports and department or officer level possible reason to stick with one side... this creates the potential to bias an entire department against a potential victim. 
aka if mistakes are made or an officer thinks they might have been and decides to deflect to the victim while making reports that favor the caller/potential abuser. you have the potential to create a situation where an entire department becomes biased against a potential victim.
and to the title of this post, these actions make them less likely to call the police or think there will ever be any help
i think about the most dystopian harmful rights infringing solution to this (and what we would appear to have implemented) is to then paint that person as in need of psychological help.
I dont think this is really so much an issue with departments or any officers, it seems this role of family mediator was thrust onto organizations whose primary mission profile and training are not in line with the stated new mission goal. 
id say a big issue after the liability or perceived liability is as family mediators there's this assumption that the officers wont experience the "this is how i was this is normal this is how culture says it should be" bias. aka they aren't primarily or possibly at all trained to mediate drama from a non gender or cultural bias. which is bad news when there are trainings along the lines of always maintain power in encounters and the likes.
there is always a stop gap. individual emotional IQ, intelligence and study of or edu in psych and its mix with situational awareness. put simply some officers will likely do well in this situation regardless of all else.
regardless of any of that the potential to harm individuals is very real and if the goal is peace officer I would think we could do a lot better than hope a few on the force have the intelligence to create that. 
regardless of my situation and what one evaluates it as... its hard to argue that this is an unlikely issue or that the risks and harm to one who does experience it aren't real. 
this is also perhaps a rather naive group of assumptions on the intent. it could get a lot darker or we could chose to belive absolute authority is absolutely perfect even in a system with few logical protections to ensure it. I wanted to argue this point from a non jaded perspective /without those assumptions in the hopes it establishes the issue regardless of ones preexisting beliefs. 
there are realities that the majority of shelters are not for men. there are realities like 1 in 4 homeless persons are female or more to the point: 3 out of 4 homeless people are male. or again generalized (and likely due to how media and edu paint issues) women are much more likely to be believed as a victim or alleging they are, and are more likely to have somewhere else to turn/go. they are also less likely to be removed from the location even if they are determined to be the aggressor and or changed with anything. on top of that sentencing disparity is real. 
I add this now because the point is we know there are some groups more likely than others to be able to escape an abusive situation or even recognize it as such. that said its still no good for the individual of the favored group who is the victim but finds themselves cast otherwise.  i really wish equality hadent become empowerment. in the end I think it hurts everyone involved.  
my personal experience could probably be summed up as:
"it puts the lotion on its skin or we call the police again" 
maybe about 7 months ago, i requested to meet with mgpd, one officer became two and shortly after i heard "if we put that on record we might be liable" 
which could go more than one way/ doesnt necessarily mean for anything done to me. that said and along the lines of deflection (and over half a year before the above statement)
me: "what specific legislation was used the night you applied the mental hold?" was first met with an officer explaining i wouldnt find it in any law book and when i responded "sir i was under the assumption legislation is both what defines and limits your power"
the deflection was 
"why do you shove your mom around?" which was alleged not witnessed. alleged on a 31 year clean record. 
healthy brains try to avoid trauma. or better put learn from it. aka hot stove young hand. probably not something that happens twice in a normal child. detainment police or medical is trauma. this is a situation where murkey reasons endanger the psychological stability of the detained. deflecting on asking for clarification... 

No comments:

Post a Comment

 It just dawned on me. If you want to see evidence that black people are no more inherently violent than white people Martin Luther King and...