[ad_1]

The illusion is simple. From the perspective herein, the adherents of appeasement, pacification and submission, for “political correctness” in a rubric of defeatism and intentional self-victimization, hastily subscribe to a divisive context. In opposition to those trained to “serve and protect”, the “warriors”, others who easily surrender their individualism for the herded psychosis of “group think”, construct the illusion of a “guardian”, as opposed to a crime fighter. Mostly pampered, comfortably sheltered, untested in the real world, and inexperienced in the hardships of life, they rally in opposition to real 1% who will protect them no matter what evil lurks.

Allied to the “guardian” conjecture, are the pundits, the politicians and other pretentious proselytes of sleight of hand trickery. Each has a hidden agenda to promote the selfish materiality of self-interests. Typically, from academics, to those who ought to know better given some level of real-life experience, so called “experts” ally themselves with the foolish speculation of an alleged “militarization” of the police. Aside from the reality, that the U.S. is an excellent example of decentralized law enforcement, with many agencies performing exceptional services, the frequent fallacy is to speak of American police as one unified system. Why bother to look at history?

When bias influences conclusions, and errors in subjective validation devolve hasty generalizations, why be concerned with the concept of “home rule”, and local control of law enforcement functions? Instead, to regress the assumptions further, add to the confusion by lumping 20,000 police agencies into one “nationalistic” conception. That way one can easily assure, within a devolving culture, followers will accept simplistic nebulous notions that mask other purposes for dishonest intentions.

At the outset, there appears a public and political perception that U.S. law enforcement operations can be significantly altered in a way that makes people feel better. By feeling better, politicians, pundits and non-practitioner proselytes can mass market a false sense of security. That of course is not new in American politics. By asserting a fictitious and comforting illusion, the perception degrades to a fallacy of inference that claims the slippery slope that hope springs eternal. From that flow the non-factual assertions that lead to temptations of erroneous generalizations.

The misconception and trickery, or sleight of hand, stems from academic conjecture (non-practitioner theoretical perspective) that attempts to redefine the role of the enforcement practitioner, absent any serious evidentiary justification. How safe and secure is it to criticize from the “hallowed halls” of academia? But wait, in post-modern America anyone can be an “expert” on anything. Most of the time, it does not take much to consider oneself a “nationally” recognized “authority”. We can witness this unique superficiality frequently, from police agencies to press conferences.

Instead of specious posturing about nebulous notions of “warrior cop versus guardian”, discussion might want to consider the diversity of police services in the U.S. Instead, a serious part of the societal discussion should be analytic focus on budgeting, recruitment, education, career development, and merit retention. Yet by proselytizing the mantra of “militarization” from several spheres, like the news media, alleged non-expert researchers, and others with limited experience in the criminal justice field, more critical issues as state’s rights, home rule, decentralized policing can be cleverly avoided.

As to the illusion of “warrior” contrasted against “guardian”, the complexity of American law enforcement is more intricate than simple-minded concepts of arrogant presumptions about a “militarized policing”. At present as suggested earlier, the American constabulary is comprised of nearly 20,000 state and local law enforcement agencies, including some 3,000 sheriff’s offices. In addition to that, there are 65 federal law enforcement agencies and 27 inspector general offices, with law enforcement powers. In addition, a number of other specialized law enforcement functions.

Yet, for the fantasy of the inexperienced non-practitioner, those who want to market a particular viewpoint, sell a book or promote a movie, the scare mongering can be very effective. Among the first to fold and get nervous tend to be politicians. Those standing alongside the elected representative, fearful of their term of service, include the appointees. These are usually casualties of appointed office when a crisis erupts. When a criminal incident is fictionalized beyond the facts, gets reported 24/7 through the mainstream “infotainment”, subsequently there will be “scapegoats”. To give a yellow tint to the sensationalism, there is often a reinvention of what actually happened in the first place. Politicians will try to look intelligent, spew what they think the media wants to hear, and over-generalize and rationalize the role of “national” policing.

Naturally, there are noble examples and exceptionally noteworthy instances of “warrior” leaders within our complex multifaceted criminal justice systems, which stand on firm footing. True heroic leaders are rare. Here however, the discussion is about the others, the detractors who do what they can for selfish reasons to weaken the effectiveness of modern law enforcement operations. By claims that are laden with foolish fallacies of inference, that scream malevolently constructed hasty generalizations, one size fits all becomes a “single bullet theory” for every situation.

Nearly a million men and women serve in the ranks of law enforcement, corrections and probation services throughout the country. In addition, given the previously stated data relative to the number of policing agencies in the U.S., these criminal justice systems are diverse and multifaceted in terms of their lawful missions. By numbers alone, agencies employ less 1% of the total population. According to the latest census data, about 325,000,000 people currently reside legally inside the U.S. Now, add to that about another 15,000,000 living her illegally, about 340,000,000.

That means about .003%, less than 1%, are employed in public sector protective sources. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the people living in the U.S. rely on this small decentralized group, spread over fifty states, to risk their lives to ensure everyone is safe and secure. While many members of the public are quick to criticize, defame and badmouth the police, the same do little or nothing to enhance public safety services. Regardless, of the societal stupidity in the daily “anti-police” discourse, at least 90% of the 1% continues to do their jobs effectively as training and resources allow.

So, for the cultural clowns, the social circus entertainers and news media pundits of the edutainment world, who think the police are “militarizing”, as though one consolidated national police force that threatens the republic, such seems ignorant and sophomoric. Nonetheless, pseudo-celebrities of every kind, from athletes to pretentious actors, enjoy the spotlight of condescending herd thinking of police criticisms.

With that is the fascinating notion of how many critics would never join the ranks of law enforcement personnel. It is absurdly simple to be a critic without having ever experienced the creativity of doing the job itself. Or, for that matter, consider the number of “war-hawks” calling for wars on terrorism who have never been real warriors. A number of prominent politicians and news pundits fall into this scheme.

This is not untypical in a devolving culture bent on its own regressive behaviors. For instance, those who have never served in the military or law enforcement, or any aspect of the criminal justice systems tend to be most critical of things they know little about. Much disingenuous rhetoric comes from the sanctimonious halls of academia. From which, there is much ado about being quick to criticize, make fun of, or otherwise demand somebody go to “war” over something, absent critical analysis and enlightened insight. By abject nature of fallacy of inference, hasty generalizations rationalize a “one size fits all” template to fit an overlay for the whole country.

Similarly, as some commentators have suggested, the “cupcake”, or the “snowflake” generation, with limited experience and knowledge, are often quick to disparage the police by exhibiting an extraordinary loss of common sense. Alleged “think tanks”, or research forums, host “armchair commandos” from all walks of life with pretentions to expertise. Especially intriguing are the ones who ought to know better, yet submit to “law and order” psychobabble for the sake of cultural conformity. That is to say again, “political correctness” and its associated provocations of divisiveness.

The usual suspects are easy to find within the scheme of superficial discourse regarding the police. Among the simplistic notions, these are particularly the bureaucrats turned politicians, and for the satiation of private agendas, acquiesce the “party line”. They might even wear stars on the collars and served in the military or law enforcement. And yet, for the “politics” they quickly close ranks with politicians. Easily, they conspire with the pseudoscientists from the “hallowed halls” of academia. Non-practitioners, particularly from the pseudoscience schools of thought, are often quick to turn theory into reality, based on limited evidentiary validation. Magical thinking abounds.

Those who pursue the well-worn path of safe mediocrity, the “safe places”, ignore the vital necessity of the brave omnipresent sentinel. Whether referred to as “guardian” or “warrior”, only a few stand ready to take action when danger arrives, sometimes at their own peril and fatal sacrifice. Classical practitioners relish in the concept of the “warrior spirit”, or a special kind of tactical “mindset”. Others, feeling less inclined to such notion cling to the nebulous conjecture of the “watchful guardian”. For a number of untested critics, the notion of “law enforcement” is arrogantly misunderstood, and foolishly reduced to simplistic and superficial talk show discussions.

From a classical criminological perspective, people freely choose their modus operandi for violence and terror. Because there is premeditated and willful violent behavior, capable protectors provide a counterbalance by way of aggressive countermeasures. The harsh reality of understanding the actual and potential devastation people are capable of inflicting, requires a powerful enforcement response.

Again, to be repetitive, because apparently such things are ignored, actual field knowledge, exposure to risks in hands-on interactions, provides an evolving spectrum of insight. Of course, this is a generalization, since there are those in these public service arenas that take an opposing viewpoint. Regardless, to those not affiliated by way of experience in the realms of law enforcement, corrections or the military, dealing with dangerous and unpredictable encounters is mainly theoretical.

Non-practitioners typically do not have the “in your face” real world familiarity to appreciate the diversity of criminality in human behavior. Alleged “experts”, from every kind, falter significantly in grasping a deeper understanding of the deadly deceptions criminal behavior perpetrates. For the sake of justice, order maintenance and civility, it is vital to have competent, well-trained and effectively equipped community “warriors” at all levels of American policing. Realistically, the idea of “warrior cop” is not about brandishing swords, wearing suit of armor or so-called militaristic accoutrements.

Allegations of “militarizing the police” is a fairytale concocted by people who give opinions without being experts at opinion giving. It is reflective of a culture that relegates complex social systems and intricate human behavior to simplistic conjecture. Without examining rationally, by way of exceptional evidentiary capacity, the framework of a diverse decentralized policing, a sophomoric notion of “the police” is presented. From simplified conjecture, as one size fits all, the maladaptive posture promulgates serious fallacies of inference. Untenable hasty generalization easily materialize.

Yet, the essence of “warrior cop”, although metaphorical in a sense, represents the application of a profound sense of duty, discipline and devotion. Such is an expression that advances the special nature of the varied “multi-systems” of law enforcement. At the local, state and federal levels, the unique capabilities of brave men and women, who have sworn allegiance to an ethical code, are brought to bear in the nobility of public service. As such, the very notion of such servitude has “militant” connotations.

In times of crisis, many want a “warrior”. And, in times of peace, a “warrior” ensure the peacefulness. Likewise, with superbly crafted training and skills honed to professional standards, uniquely qualified women and men carrying out the mission and goals of public service. Physically fit, exceptionally educated, and specially equipped, are by their very nature a “paramilitary” constabulary. As there are a diversity of agencies in a decentralized multi-system of a republic, so are the opinions inside and outside the profession. Given a particular political climate, in which viewpoints are not accentuated by real world experience, anti-police attitudes wear many disguises.

There are “politicians and pundits” who wear uniforms who will oppose any semblance of a “warrior cop” concept. They will frequently assert all manner of contrary claims, interwoven with fallacies of inferences. Nonetheless, depending on the locale and the environmental conditions therein, an omnipresent sentinel is preferred to that of the so called “watchful guardian”. As societies move closer to eventual demise of the human species, communal security, crime suppression, peacekeeping, and order maintenance require a potent symbol of lawful sustainability. Warriors are necessary.

However, with the gradual weakening of policing efforts in general, by the adversity of political correctness, among other debasing factors, it is no surprise as to the rising anti-police sentiments. Aside from the surreal world of academia pontificating all manner of police negativity, having never served behind the badge, the gradual waning of social infrastructure continues by a collectivity of anti-social processes. Stupidity is on the rise, as a “sissified” level of narcissistic infantilism is readily accepted as the norm.

Here, the assertion of “sissified” reflects the research of some who claim American society has not only dumbed down, but also falters in areas of moral courage and mature ascension. Self-evolution in productive transformation in selfless service is neither encouraged nor openly advanced. In another instance, the lack of mandatory national service does not help promote a proactive industrious commitment to social welfare. The loss of role model exceptionality in the promotion of rugged individual, the discouragement of self-reliance, the demise of personal self-discipline and failure in promotion of impeccable character traits has not helped either. Nowadays, children do not grow up, or get over the “glory days” of high school. Instead, they believe illusions and mythologies like the so-called “guardian” instead of the warrior cop.

[ad_2]

Source by Randy Gonzalez