For the sake of meaningful discourse, I’d like to address a recent comment from one of my readers. (Re: My previous posts regarding the trials and tribulations of billionaire Paul Allen.)
Reader said: I do not believe that members of law enforcement past or present, retired or active, are necessarily a group with higher moral standards than the average person. Just like many average people, they have sex, both licit and illicit. They snort cocaine, smoke marijuana, gulp vicodin and booze just like the rest of the population.
And, just like everyone else who works for a super rich person, security personnel are owned by that super rich person. For the super rich, it is not merely "a concept of entitlement" as you say, it IS entitlement.
If these ex-Allen security people were so upset about him and his entourage participating in illegal activities, then why not turn them over to the law? I think the answer is their settlement wouldn't amount to much. They'd get their 15 minutes of fame and that's about it. A nice fat settlement must appear more important to these "ethics" police than justice.
And, just like everyone else who works for a super rich person, security personnel are owned by that super rich person. For the super rich, it is not merely "a concept of entitlement" as you say, it IS entitlement.
If these ex-Allen security people were so upset about him and his entourage participating in illegal activities, then why not turn them over to the law? I think the answer is their settlement wouldn't amount to much. They'd get their 15 minutes of fame and that's about it. A nice fat settlement must appear more important to these "ethics" police than justice.
True’s Response: Well reader, although your comment is somewhat of a downer, you are probably right. And, as a result, you’ve tramped a bit on my idealistic side. Yes, you are probably right. Proportionately speaking, modern law enforcement personnel likely have just as many problems as the general public – maybe even more. I wish it wasn’t so.
Regarding Allen's civil suit, yes, money is the principal motivator.
Regarding the moral, ethical standards of law enforcement types (past and present), well...
In recent times the FBI has had, among their Special Agents, subsequently convicted murderers, embezzlers, and international spies. The reasons for that go far beyond coincidence. It has become symptomatic and representative of the times and culture in which we live. Local law enforcement is just as bad, perhaps even worse.
Some of my personal observations:
- Qualifications for employment: When I entered the Bureau, the standard regarding the use of illegal drugs was unequivocal. If you’d ever used illegal drugs, you were simply not Agent material. Currently, the standard for an Agent position is that you can’t have used illegal drugs in the last three to five years. Additionally, in those days you were not accepted if you were found to have cohabited with a female out of wedlock. Any whiff of scandal, dishonesty, unethical behavior found in your very thorough background investigation automatically eliminated you from consideration.
I’ve heard that modern Agents are smarter than those in the 70s. OK, but if they are, it doesn’t seem to be reflected in the results for which they are paid exceedingly well – referencing results for per capita fines, savings, recoveries and prosecutions. Go to the FBI website and review their posted accomplishments. For an agency, a bureaucracy, the size of the present FBI, they aren’t that impressive.
.
Modern Agents would find the earlier referenced standards for employment, to become an Agent, quaint, petty and laughable. And, maybe they were. Times do change, but changes often parallel the erosion of standards.
- Unionization of our emergency services: Probably the worst thing that ever happened to the quality of law enforcement. Suddenly, the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency has no real control over managing the conduct and effectiveness of his employees. Law enforcement personnel should serve ‘at will.’ They should be salaried ‘exempt’ personnel. If you don’t know the difference between ‘exempt’ and ‘non-exempt’ look it up. Furthermore, the chief administrator is beholden to the union to get him elected and/or preserve his position – tit for tat. I know this comment will undoubtedly generate a few ugly remarks. I’m sorry, but it’s the truth.
- Affirmative Action: A good idea when it started, a great idea when it started, but it quickly evolved into a quota system. Standards of employment were adjusted downward to meet Affirmative Action expectations. Some of you will huff and puff, but it’s true.
Did you know that the mental test you take for employment as a FBI Agent, and/or scoring, varies according to race, sex, etc.?
Let me give you one small example regarding firearms training for FBI Agents. When I became an Agent, we had a rather challenging firearms course in which to qualify – shooting, with a handgun, initially from the sixty yard line and then moving forward to other positions while reloading - all timed. In the recent past, some, a few, not all, of female applicants have had trouble with the firearms' requirements. So, the standards were gradually reduced. Now the Bureau is considering reducing the shooting requirement to seven yards. No, that’s not a joke. Why? The official reason is that gunfights are generally within the seven yard distance. I say, nonsense. The real reason? Affirmative action. Allegedly some women and a few men have ‘small hands’ which reportedly creates an unfair disadvantage for them. I’m sorry, but if you have such small hands that it makes you unable to effectively utilize the Bureau’s issue weapon, maybe you should not be a FBI Agent. And, if the Agent trainee is unable to learn proper marksmanship (trigger control, sight alignment and gun management), perhaps they shouldn’t carry a gun at all. They constitute a danger to themselves and the public.
PS: For those of you who are non-shooters, a good, earlier qualified FBI Agent – from seven yards – could hit the K-5 on a silhouette, six for six, blindfolded.
True Nelson
I love that particular Rockwell. It reminds me of the police of my childhood and early adulthood. Perhaps reality is shaded by my nostalgia, however, I remember when a police officer would bring your dog home, help you carry your groceries, have a talk with a teenaged boy for a single mother, escort home safely teens who had been drinking, etc. and still be able to nab the bad guys and keep us safe.
ReplyDeleteI also remember when most of local law enforcement were hired from the general public without prior education and training. Training took place in the department after employment was offered. These men (and some women) probably had no clue what exempt meant, but it did not matter. A police officer was a police officer, just like a doctor is a doctor, regardless of the time of day or day of the week and performed their duties whether they were clocked in or not, without a thought to their pension or co-pay for their health benefits.
Now law enforcement recruits come from an "academy" where they are trained as robocops. These academies became quite popular and the norm when Nancy Reagan's drug war was declared. They are also very lucrative enterprises for their owners.
I think you make very good points regarding Affirmative Action and unions. Both are very good and necessary things, in my opinion, however I do see how they could appear detrimental to law enforcement institutions.
I don't see the change to shooting standards as necessarily one of lowering standards. I think the standards to which you were held were born from a time of Capone and G-men. Unlike the Hollywood portrayal of FBI shooting scenes, I doubt current agents have much occasion to be engaged in shoot outs. I'm not saying it never happens, but now agents have such specialized gear that they aren't walking into dens of bad guys protected only by their shooting skills as they were during the prohibition days.
Your post has really made me think about how law enforcement has become a militarized entity operating in a corporate structure. It's become a business. It is quite fascinating actually, when you think about the current standards for drug use. Does it show our society views drug use as more acceptable than in the past? Doubtful, but with one drug in particular, marijuana, I think it appears that way since the adage that "everyone does it in high school or college" is what is repeated. It could well be one very clear indicator that even the FBI recognizes how stupid and antiquated the law is regarding marijuana.
I am a shooter and marvel at your description of hitting your target blindfolded. Being able to shoot, move forward and reload is admirable. I'll spend the rest of today fantasizing about a pellet gun and the critters using my garden as their buffet.