|
Zonie63 -> RE: 19 yr old tagger, tazed, died, do you care? (8/14/2013 8:06:42 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
A seasoned, intelligent, brave, level police officer would not have handled this situation like this at all. I think they were running on emotion only, not logic.
I have known some cops who have told me that they're bound to assert police authority more than anything else. They feel an obligation to make it a priority come down hard on anyone who mouths off, runs away, or otherwise defies the authority of the police. I've been told that the best thing to do is be compliant, respectful, and honest. If it's a minor infraction, they might even let you off with a warning. I don't think that would have worked in this case, although I agree that the smarter thing for the kid to do would be to just give up and offer no resistance.
I don't know that it's necessarily an ego thing or a power trip, as there might actually be a method behind the madness. I think the logic is that if they didn't deal with open defiance in a harsh and aggressive manner, then the police would lose their authority and society would degenerate into anarchy. I don't entirely agree with that, although I understand the reasoning behind it. It's not entirely the cops' fault either, as they're under pressure themselves, and they're part of a hierarchy where shit rolls downhill. They didn't really create the situation; they just have the duty to deal with it.
But how does a situation like this get created in the first place? Obviously, the kid is mostly at fault here, since he was the one vandalizing, but it seems like a constant problem that never goes away. I go through some areas and can scarcely find a single vertical surface which hasn't been defaced in some way. I can understand society's frustration in demanding that the police do something about it, so the police are under pressure - although the problem itself was not really created by the police. They just have to deal with the shit that's caused by the collective whole of society, such as a culture which convinces kids that it's cool to paint graffiti all over the place.
How do these ideas get into their heads? Is it just the thrill factor of doing something illegal? Are they trying to convey some sort of message? I've read recently that the gangs don't really mark their territory in this way anymore, that most graffiti is done by non-gang members, generally delinquents and mischief-makers, not hardened criminals.
I don't really buy the argument that they're "artists." Maybe some of them are, but if so, then there are plenty of other avenues one can express one's artistic talent. Fact is, society loves artists. I appreciate good art myself, and even some graffiti might have a political or philosophical message which might challenge one to think. Hell, even something as innocuous as "John Loves Mary" might be annoying but not so bad in the grand scheme of things.
But a lot of this graffiti is just mindless, nonsensical scribbling. I feel like I need a Graffiti-to-English translator to be able to figure out what any of that illegible gibberish is supposed to mean.
I think what we need is a squad of English teachers to volunteer to go around with cans of red spray paint to correct and write comments about the bad penmanship and poor grammar of most graffiti "artists." (Art teachers could also be employed to give grades to the actual "art.") Once they see their graffiti being publicly corrected and graded a big fat "F," then they will see the error of their ways and stop on their own. It just won't be as fun anymore.
|
|
|
|
