Customer Service

I spent much of my adult life working in retail: gas stations, newspaper circulation, grocery stores. For a few years I taught a customer service class for the company I worked for. And as someone who is now out of retail, I am sensitive to the level of service that I receive when interacting with customer service personnel. I was going to write a pair of blog posts, one addressing bad customer service employees, and the other addressing bad customers, but decided to combine the two.

I'm old enough to remember when the phrase "the customer is always right" was not as ubiquitous as it is now. When it was enough for a business to give the customer what it said it was going to give with a minimum of friction. When the goal wasn't to "delight the customer", but to simply to provide the customer what they were paying for. Egregious rudeness was not tolerated, neither from the business nor from the customer. A business transaction was just that, a transaction where both sides treated each other with respect, or at least without disrespect or overt rudeness. When I was a young man I had a weekend job in a full service gas station. The station manager was a surly ex-Marine by the name of Al Kramer. He was in many ways very difficult to work for, but when push came to shove, he didn't allow customers to abuse his employees. One afternoon a customer complained that I had short changed him. In those days gas purchases were not rung up on a register. Everybody who worked the gas pumps was given a "bank" to start his shift and the cash from each transaction was held by the worker until the end of his shift. Each pump had a little counter that kept track of dollars and gallons - these numbers were written down at the beginning and end of every shift and compared with the money that was turned in. If there was question of a customer being shortchanged, that particular pump would be shut down, a reading taken, and the money counted and compared to the difference between beginning and ending readings. In this case, I had the exact amount of money that I should have, therefore, I had not shortchanged the customer. The customer, however, was not satisfied with this answer and accused me of stealing the money, and not including it in what I turned in, and asked Al what he was going to do about it. His response to "what are you going to do about it?" was to tell him that he was going to give him a kick in the ass and threw him out of the station. How common do you think it would be today for a manager to not only stick up for his employee, but to do so in such an emphatic manner? Al Kramer may have been an extreme example, but I can't imagine any retail manager back in those days allowing a customer to verbally abuse an employee. What changed?

As I stated earlier, it used to be that a business person's only goal was to provide their customers with their product at the advertised price. Of course I'm aware that there was a time, before the rise of unions, when employees where viewed as little better than slaves. Low wages, horrible working conditions, no job security. But the interaction between the business and the customer was one of caveat emptor, i.e. "let the buyer beware". Somewhere along the way, "customer service" became as much of a commodity as the product itself. I ask again, what changed? I'm going to blame Walmart as one instigator of the change to "the customer is always right", although there are certainly other causes. Walmart, or giant companies like Walmart, can be viewed as instigators, not because they emphasized customer service, but because of their strategy of driving competitors out of business by offering prices so low that it was almost impossible to compete on the basis of price. If you couldn't compete on price, you had several competitive options open to you: one was quality, the other was service. 

In the scramble to stay in business in the face of the steamroller that is Walmart, retailers tried (and are still trying) numerous ways to keep their customers. The one path that has led to the present-day culture of customers abusing workers with impunity was to give the customer what he or she wanted, usually without question, and to reward the rudest customers for their rudeness. It's no secret that the "Karen" (or her male counterpart) who yells the loudest and is the most insistent usually is given what she wants. When in decades past a customer who yelled at or insulted the teenager ringing up groceries would be escorted out of the store, today the same customer is apologized to and given a gift card for their trouble. Unlike the Al Kramers of days gone by, an abusive customer isn't offered a kick in the ass, with the employee being given the benefit of the doubt, but today's employee is assumed by management to be in the wrong and the customer is courted and begged to forgive. As I used to say when I was a retail manager: we've trained customers to be assholes. 

Some people just want to control other people. They fall into several categories:

The Truly Powerful Person
People who have real power, whether it is in the political realm, the business world, sports, social status or even being physically intimidating are used to getting their own way. Sometimes it comes from being surrounded by sycophants who cater to their every whim. Sometimes it comes from being used to employing the fear of being beat up or shot to get their way. This type of person, in his or her daily life, sees no benefit to treating others with respect or kindness. That doesn't mean that people in power can't treat others with respect or kindness or that they won't, just that there is no social pressure to do so. In everyday interactions, the Truly Powerful Person (TPP) is habituated to giving orders and having them obeyed without question. So what happens when the TPP is in a situation where no one knows that they are powerful or where there power is irrelevant? When confronted by this indifference to their exalted status, the TPP often responds by saying things like "Do you know who I am?" or "I'll have you fired". They are so flabbergasted by the absence of the deference that they are usually accorded that they lash out. The TPP often knows people. Perhaps they play golf with the company president, or have connections at the mayor's office. There's a good chance that they will get what they want and more, just by suggesting that they're going to talk to their other powerful friends. When encountering retail employees their natural inclination is to see them as just another person to provide them without question, with everything that they ask for.

The Conventionally Powerless
Many people have little to no power in their everyday lives. They are far down the ladder of power and authority in their jobs, socially, politically and economically. They may be a persecuted minority, they may be a low skill worker, they may be poor. They spend most of their time being disregarded and treated badly. So what happens when they encounter someone over whom they may have some small measure of power, even if it's only temporary? The smallest slight becomes cause for retaliation. They act in a manner similar to those who have actual power. In fact, I have seen this type of person become  more abusive and eager to throw their weight around than those who have real power. At one of my previous positions we had a guy that we called "hand basket guy". We called him that because he would enter through the exit door and, not seeing any hand baskets (they were usually by the entrance door), would curtly say "hand basket" to whoever walked by. Not, "where are the hand baskets?" or "can you get me a hand basket?", but simply "hand basket". He was a dick. This man, not only raised hell whenever he had a legitimate complaint, but he seemed to come in looking for something to complain about. He would berate checkers when they didn't respond to him in the way that he thought was "correct", but we noticed that when he was shopping with his wife, he was as meek as a lamb. Possibly she had the real power at home and he came to the store to exercise a little control. People in this category are wont to threaten to sue you if you do not comply with their wishes. However, they generally are the kind of people who can't afford a lawyer and haven't the slightest idea of what is legally actionable.

The Person Who Has Authority in a Teeny, Tiny Area
You sometimes see this with people who have been given a small measure of authority: small town police and government officials come to mind, the clerk at the DMV or the guy checking IDs at a popular night spot. Somebody gave them some power and dammit!, they're going to enjoy it! They may not have a lot of power in the grand scheme of things, but they're going to exercise it in their own narrow sphere. Fortunately, these people usually practice their power grabbing assholeyness in their own circle of authority, and rarely take it out on retail clerks. Watch out if you're speeding in their town though.

The Hybrid
A combination of the truly powerful  and the conventionally powerless, this is a person who comes from a typically powerless group, like a racial minority, or is uneducated, or comes from the "wrong side of the tracks". When this person gains power and prestige, either by education, success in sports, music or business, or maybe even in the realm of criminal activity, "respect" becomes very important. Respect is demanded in all situations. When the fantasized level of respect is not accorded to the hybrid, not only will this type of person lash out, like the first category of person, but accusations of bigotry are thrown around as well. This person probably won't sue you. They probably think that they know powerful people, but actually just routinely annoy powerful people. They'll write letters to the editor and flood social media with their view that you are an idiot.

Whatever category of control-seeker a customer may be in, the knowledge that their behavior will be encouraged emboldens them. 

So, if the culture has shifted so much that abusive behavior by customers is accepted and mainstreamed, why does it seem like bad customer service is as widespread as it is? Before I answer that, let me tell you what I think good customer service consists of (and what it doesn't):

* It's not acting like you're my best friend. I don't care if you like me. I don't care if you are uninterested in my personal life. If you're a cashier, ring my order up accurately and quickly; if you're a waiter, take my order and bring me what I ordered. I have told several checkers over the years that they were "my favorite" because they didn't pretend to like me

* It's not spouting out clearly insincere phrases like "Welcome to Ralph's Hardware"

* It's not asking me if I found everything that I came in for unless you plan to do something about it

* It's not having every employee run up to me to "greet" me ((I'm looking at you, B&R Five Feet & Greet)

* It is answering any questions I may have about availability or location of products, but not rolling your eyes and sighing if you think I asked a "stupid" question; or correcting my pronunciation of a product

* It's having advertised products on the shelf throughout the life of an ad or giving me a raincheck or making a substitution if the product is not available

* It's focusing on my order and not holding personal conversations with other employees

On occasion I have encountered over-the-top rudeness by retail employees. I have also witnessed numerous examples of just plain poor customer service skills. A few months ago a purchased several dozen folders from a local store. There were two different varieties with a small variance in price between each. I double checked the UPC codes to make sure I was getting the right product. When the cashier was canning them I saw that about half of them were ringing up at a wrong, higher, price. When I pointed this out to the cashier, she replied "Oh you probably got the wrong ones". When I assured her that I had not, she countered with "Sometimes things are different prices". Yes, sometimes customers grab the wrong items and sometimes things are different prices, but leading with a suggestion that the customer is wrong is...wrong. She could have asked someone to do a price check, or asked a manager for input, but she continued arguing with me. Eventually a manger came over. When I attempted to explain the situation, he ignored me. He, seeing the amount of money was relatively small, gave in. In this scenario, no one was overtly rude to me, but neither the cashier, nor the manager, was engaging in basic customer service with a polite customer who had a legitimate complaint. How does this happen.

Poor training. 

How often does a new employee get thrown into her job with insufficient training? How many managers got thrown into their jobs with insufficient training? And now, because they have no idea how to handle customer questions or complaints, or for that matter even the basics of customer interactions, they have participated in a vicious cycle that gives the customer a pretext for escalating into rudeness.

Speaking of vicious cycles, how many rude retail employees are acting that way because they have had enough customer abuse, have had enough of a lack of support from management, are sick of being in a system where you are expected to bow and scrape to people who treat you like dirt? To not only accept abuse, but often be forced to apologize to the abuser for objecting to the abuse? Just because someone is young, is in their first job or is uneducated, doesn't mean that they're stupid. They know that calling them an "associate" or a "teammate" doesn't make them any any better than when they were called simply an "employee". They see that the retail culture devalues them, and it's not going to get better. So they act as if they don't care. 

Because they don't, they know there's some other low-wage job that they can get tomorrow if you fire them today. 

 

Killings: Of Police/By Police

I've never had the kind of job where it was possible that, as part of my job, I would be killed during my shift. I have never served in the military and I have never been a police officer. I would imagine that it would be a priority for a police officer to be diligent and aware in order to come home (alive) at the end of the day, but I really can't imagine the stress that a person is under in those circumstances. And not just the police officer, but the officer's family as well. It's really no comfort to surviving family members to hear that it was a part of the job, or "he knew what he was getting into" after a loved one is killed in the line of duty. 

But it is part of the job that a police officer signs up for. 

I know that sounds harsh, and I don't mean to make light of police being killed, but when an unarmed person, who is complying with an officer's demands, and at worst is accused of a misdemeanor or traffic offense is killed, the reflexive response by law enforcement supporters is to tell us how tough a cop's job is, how they never know when someone might pull a gun on them, or how often police are killed in the line of duty. 

All of that is objectively true, but the subtext seems to be that a police officer is completely justified in proactively killing someone who might be a threat. Does this happen all the time, or even most of the time. Probably not. But the position of most police departments seems to be that the life of the officer is the most important thing in any contact between the police and the public, and if official policy is otherwise, the saying "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" carries the day. 

There is a fundamental difference, therefore, between a police officer being killed in the line of duty and a civilian being killed  by police. In the first instance, it is by definition being done by a criminal. If caught, the killer will be arrested (if lucky - cops really pull out all the stops for cop killers) and put on trial and likely convicted. Someone killed by the police is usually demonized - if they have ever been arrested, that's brought up - their actions prior to being killed are questioned - and rarely is a police officer tried for killing someone, and even more rarely, convicted. Innocent people have been killed because a cop claims that he "feared for his life" without having to produce any evidence, or even articulate any reasoning, why he thought his life was in danger. The "us vs. them" mindset that paints non-police as enemies is perpetuated by the courts. 

It's a tragic thing when a police officer is killed, as it is when a firefighter dies in a fire, or a soldier is killed in combat. In a perfect world, it wouldn't happen, but in each case of a police officer being killed, it was done by a "bad guy". But police are supposed to be the "good guys". They're not supposed to kill 12 year-olds with toy guns, or men reaching for their wallets according to police directive after informing the police that they were armed; they're not supposed to restrain suspects until they suffocate; they're not supposed to shoot women in their sleep; they're not supposed to shoot social workers who are on the ground with their hands raised. 

I don't want to see any dead cops. I do want to see cops refrain from killing people who aren't trying to kill them. 

Life Isn't Fair

 

Life Isn't Fair

Bad Things Happen Sometimes

But So Do Good Things

A Lot Is Beyond Our Control

Things Don't Happen "For A Reason"

Or According To A Deity's "Plan"

(Unless That Deity Is A Sadistic Jackass)

Do Your Best

With The Cards You Are Dealt

Bluff If You Have To

Straw Men and Intentional Misunderstanding: Blue Lives

In a perfect world everyone would speak and write using perfect grammar, all their statements will be perfectly consistent, and words would be used according to the accepted Merriam-Webster definitions. In that perfect world no one would ever have to ask "What did you mean by that?".

But we don't live in that best of all possible worlds.

People make imprecise statements. I noted recently how a friend, when coming across incendiary posts in social media, gives the other person a chance to explain himself. If the offending person takes the opportunity to clarify, it may be that the statement wasn't intended to be offensive, or the offended person didn't understand the context or nuance. Of course it could be that no clarification can explain it away and the initial statement really was offensive.

What seems to happen a lot is that people intentionally misunderstand, deploying the straw man fallacy to attack a position that the other person really doesn't hold, not allowing for lack of precision in the choice of words.

The recent protests against police abuses that arose following the murder by police of George Floyd in Minneapolis engendered a lot of slogans, some of which were misunderstood by those who disagreed with the manner of protesting. One of these is related to the slogan "Blue Lives Matter" and a meme that went around that had a picture of some blue cartoon characters (Blue, from Blues Clues was one) and the caption "These Are the Only Blue Lives That Matter To Me". Cops, as well as friends and family of police officers naturally were upset, but let's look at the phrase itself and where it came from.

In 2013, following the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the death of unarmed Black teenager Trayvon Martin, the hashtag #blacklivesmatter began trending on Twitter. It soon became a rallying cry for many people who were fed up with young Black men continually being killed by white people, usually at the hands of the police. An organization with that name also started in 2013. Note that no one was saying that only Black lives matter, or that non-Black lives don't matter, but that in the eyes of the police, as well as many White people, it didn't seem like Black lives did matter. Those using that hashtag, or the phrase in general, were trying to point out that despite the lack of seeming value of Black lives in this country, Black lives mattered.

There was an almost immediate backlash. The phrase "All Lives Matter" started to be heard and seen. It seemed innocuous. Of course all lives mattered. How could anyone argue with that? But the problem with snapping back an answer to "Black Lives Matter" was that it didn't require an answer. Attempting to answer it was a rebuttal. If all lives really did matter, then we wouldn't need to say "Black Lives Matter", would we?

Another common rejoinder was "Blue Lives Matter", obviously a response intended to defend the police, who were a frequent target of Black Lives Matter activists. Similar to "All Lives Matter", not only was this supposed to be a counterpoint to "Black Lives Matters", but was meant to point out the opinion of many police and law enforcement supporters that they were in opposition to "Black Lives Matter" protesters. Again, it's obvious that the lives of police officers matter, but the term "Blue Lives Matter" is a not-so-veiled attempt at a rebuttal of "Black Lives Matter".

Of course, there are no "blue lives".

What?

As I have recently seen pointed out, "blue" is a profession; a cop can take his uniform off at the end of the day, a Black person can't take off his skin. A police officer can retire or leave the force and take up another profession and any animosity toward the police goes away. A Black person is always Black.

When I first lived in Nebraska I experienced a lot of persecution due to my religion. I remember thinking at the time that I could move to the next town, keep my religion quiet, no one would ever know, and the discrimination would end (as it did), but that a Black person did not have that option. It was a turning point for me.

So if you are offended by memes or posts or comments speaking against the slogan "Blue Lives Matter", it doesn't mean that they think the lives of individual police offers don't matter, or that they wish harm on police officers, but that the phrase is meaningless, since there are no "blue lives". In addition, the phrase is nothing more than an attempt to minimize "Black Lives Matter".

Take the time to find out what people really mean when they say what they say. If you disagree with their actual position, then go ahead and argue, but don't rail against a position that you only think they are holding, or have assumed that they hold because that's easier than taking the time to find out.

Black Lives Matter: Disrupting the Nuclear Family?

While I do get into arguments and discussion on social media, mostly I blog in order to organize my own thoughts and to try to convince myself that my own opinions make sense. I'll often see people write things that I don't think are correct, but rather than automatically disagreeing, I'll do a little checking to see if the facts at least are correct. The opinion that people have of those facts is another matter, but you have to, at least in a sane world, start with the basic facts before you can form an opinion.

Something that I have seen a lot in the last week is an accusation that Black Lives Matter is a Marxist, anti-religion organization that is, in reality against Black people and seeks to disrupt the nuclear family. I first became aware of this position through the Facebook posts of someone I know through a mutual taste in music. I've traced her views back through several Black Christian preachers. I believe that they have arrived at their opinions by selective quoting, often out of context.

Many years ago I was part of a group that liked to think of themselves as a Biblical Research ministry. In retrospect they were nothing of the sort, but they did outline several things that one must understand when reading the Bible. One was that words must be understood in light of their meaning when they were written. This group used the King James Version of the Bible, which was originally published in 1611, with revisions made over the next hundred years. Many words no longer had the same meaning as they did 400 years ago. Other keys were to read things in their context, and of course, almost so obvious that it didn't need to be said" read what was written (not what you want to be written). All of this should be common sense when it comes to evaluating anything that we hear or read.

One of the "quotes" that has been repeated is the Black Lives Matter organization (BLM) is out to disrupt the nuclear family. What does that mean? Well, first of all, the complete quote, from the BLM website is:

“We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable."

So what does that mean? Some Christians would have you believe that it means to "drastically alter or destroy" the nuclear family. Indeed, if you look up the definition of "disrupt" the first definition that pops up will say just that. But does the statement on their website say that they want to "disrupt the nuclear family"? No, it says that they "disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement...". Although it's not entirely clear just from looking at that phrase in isolation what precisely a Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement is, we can look at the context and get a clearer idea. We can determine what they mean by noting the word "by" - this clues us in on the "how" of the disruption: "by supporting each other as extended families and "villages" that collectively care for one another...". This doesn't sound like a negative interpretation of disruption (more on the modern positive definition of disruption in a moment), but harking back to a time when extended families and community were more the norm, even in American society, rather than what is the norm today, nuclear families that have isolated themselves from the greater community. Isn't that what churches espouse? The final clause "...especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable." This hardly sounds like what some people are claiming that they're saying.

So what about an alternative meaning of "disrupt", one that frames disruptions as a good thing? Here's a link to an article on the Merriam-Webster website that discusses the changing meaning of "disrupt" and "disruption":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-new-meaning-of-disrupt?fbclid=IwAR3zVqLmCFr_93Fx4EhPL0rpj2Ra8nZs88ImB56fOPCgIFDdnSBqSWa6R4Q

With this relevant quote:
"...his theory of 'disruptive innovation' were using disrupt and its variant parts of speech in a fairly narrow sense, describing a process in which new business entities successfully challenge established ones by initially focusing attention on those areas of service which the older companies had overlooked, and leveraging this to a long term advantage."

I suggest that, based on the context, the BLM website is using "disrupt" in this way, or at least defining the word in a non-standard way, not, as some would suggest, to destroy the nuclear family.

The other issue that has been used as a pretext to disavow Black Lives Matter is the recent unearthing of a video where one of the organization's founders says "We are trained Marxists". Christian preachers and their followers, claiming that Marxism is an "anti-Christian religion", have declared that it would be un-Christian to support Black Loves Matter, sometimes conflating the organization of that name with the wider movement. There are several things wrong with that conclusion. Yes, it is true that Patrisse Cullors, one of the founders of the Black Lives Matter organization, has said, in response to a suggestion that the organization had no ideology, ""We actually do have an ideological frame. Myself and Alicia in particular, we're trained organizers. We are trained Marxists. We are super versed on ideological theories."

Again we have to go back to context. The sentence right before the "trained Marxists" statement is "...we're trained organizers". So what, precisely is Marxist about the organization? You'd be hard put to find anything unambiguously Marxist about their public statements. If the BLM organization is attempting to do anything beyond keeping young Black men from being indiscriminately shot and killed by the police and affecting systemic change to advance the equality of Blacks and other minorities, (one preacher referred to BLM's advocacy for LBGTQ people as a reason to shun them) they are doing a poor job of articulating it. So a couple of the people who were active early on in this movement and copyrighted a name and started a non-profit and put up a website claim expertise in organizing that they learned as Marxists. At least one socialist organization looks at them as sell-outs who aren't championing any socialist ideals.

https://www.socialistalternative.org/marxism-fight-black-freedom/black-lives-matter-marxism/

It's pretty evident that whatever Marxism was part of their ideology has faded away as the organization has become a movement, a movement composed of thousands of people who have no connection to an organization, but strong fealty to an idea, the idea, that despite all evidence to the contrary, Black lives matter.

Black Lives Matter is not a threat to Christians. Black Live Matter is not a threat to White people. Black Lives Matter is not a threat to the nuclear family. Black Lives Matter is a threat to racism, misogyny, bigotry, and anything that devalues one group of people.

Any organization, any movement, is going to have people with whom you disagree, who say unfortunate things, who make decisions at variance to their public stance. Should we anathematize the whole movement because we have found a few clay feet? Should we demonize all Christians because some Christian organizations have done evil?

If your only public statements regarding the Black Lives Matter movement are to conflate the organization with the movement and to find ways to tar both, I'd take a few moments to examine your motives.

Your First Post Regarding Black Lives Matter Protests

There have been a few things that have been bothering me lately relating to the protests against police killings. If you utilize social media you can't avoid seeing a lot of opinions (or at least memes and shares disguised as opinions) about what's going on. Not everyone has chosen to comment one way or the other about what is arguably the biggest issue of the day. That I understand. Some choose to use Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms exclusively for fun stuff - pictures of their kids and pets and info about their favorite sports team (well not lately when it comes to sports teams!). I won't assume that you don't have an opinion, or that you're not active in some fashion if you don't use the platform in that way. Maybe you don't know the best way to articulate your opinion clearly, or maybe you just have sharp boundaries for what you discuss with others. But here's what does bother me, and where I do assume some things.

If you haven't used your social media access to speak out against police killings of unarmed black men who were not involved in any violent offense, or against the over-the-top response of some police departments to peaceful protests, but have decided to make your first comment in support of police, or mocking "liberal" responses to the violence, or even condemning the looting, then I will assume that unjustified police killings are not something that bothers you.

Let me be clear that I don't agree with some of my friends that all cops are bastards, that all cops are bad apples, or that we shouldn't have police departments. My late father was a NYPD officer for 21 years and my brother was a NYPD sergeant and homicide detective who retired after 27 years on the job. While I never observed either of them on duty, in their civilian roles as fathers and husbands, they were and are both good men. I'm sure that anyone who has a friend or family member who is a police officer would say the same thing.

The problem isn't that police officers aren't good parents or spouses, or contributing members of their communities and churches, it's that the system  encourages and excuses bad behavior in many cases. It's not even open to discussion that every day in America police cross the line and physically abuse and often kill people who are pulled over at traffic stops, who are running away, who are handcuffed and restrained face-down, often for minor offenses when neither the officer nor the public are in any danger.

Posting photos of cops changing tires, dancing at barbecues, taking knees, getting involved in community events and otherwise smiling and being good guys doesn't negate the reality that when push comes to shove, many law enforcement officers feel justified in employing maximum force for minor offenses. It's pretty easy to smile and be Officer Friendly when you're interacting with a friendly member of the public, but the problem arises when there is the least bit of resentment for being pulled over for "fitting the description" when that description is simply "black male". How do most cops react when someone "gives them attitude"? Do they just deal with it as every retail worker has to do every day of the year, or do they escalate the situation and retaliate?

Posting videos of your favorite conservative black person agreeing with you doesn't negate the issue either. Just as white people are not monolithic and have a wide and varied range of opinions, so do black people. A black conservative making the case against Black Lives Matter or any other issue doesn't "destroy" the BLM position, it's just another opinion.

I'm going to be charitable and not assume that by ignoring police killing in your social media life while at the same time decrying opposition to police tactics and posting red herrings and straw men about "liberal" opinions you're a racist (although you might be). What I am going to assume is that you haven't taken the time to set aside your preconceived notions long enough to seriously consider that there is a problem with policing in this country that needs to be corrected.

So, do that.

Bad Apples

Frankly, I'm tired of the "one bad apple" rationalizations that people come up with regarding cops that kill unarmed, and sometimes already restrained, people. In the most recent murder of a man who was falsely accused of forgery, it's not just the cop who had his knee on George Floyd's neck. He was also being restrained by two other officers while a fourth stood by. If it's "one bad apple", didn't any of the supposed "good apples" think to say "Hey bro, back off, he's cuffed and face down on the ground, he's not going anywhere, ease off"? Apparently not.

And let's take a minute to look at this whole "face down, handcuffed behind the back" default arrest position. It's probably been going on forever, but I first noticed it during the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. Once the police decided to break up the protesters' encampments and arrest the participants, peaceful, nonresistant protesters were uniformly forced face down on the ground with their hands zip-tied behind their backs. Another issue is the eagerness with which police officers draw their weapons in situations that are not violent.  How many times have we seen militarized police departments pointing their rifles at protesters who are doing nothing more violent than yelling? I remember working for the New York City Police Department pistol license division one summer and being told that you never point a gun at someone unless you are prepared to kill them.

It seems like the entire rationale behind an officer's actions is "the safety of the officer". I'm all for "the safety of the officer". My younger brother and father were both career police officers, and thankful that they always made it home in one piece. But in so many cases a cop who shot someone merely feared that he was in danger, reacting in a way, that resulted in an innocent person being killed. The mission of individual police officers isn't "To Protect and Serve"...not to protect and serve the public anyway, but to protect themselves at the expense of anyone who they fear is dangerous. The hell with any protection for people who get between them and their fear.

And let's further dispense with the "one bad apple" viewpoint. Not only do cops cover for one another, but the whole system allows these abuses. The killer cop in Minneapolis had 17 complaints against him for excessive force, including at least one for shooting an unarmed civilian. Police unions aggressively defend their members despite egregiously violent actions. Dismissed officers are hired by other police departments.

And lest we think that this isn't racism, Tamir Rice, at 12 years old, was shot and killed without warning while playing with a toy gun, Philanro Castile was shot in front of his girlfriend, even after informing the officer that killed him that he had a permit to carry a weapon and where that weapon was. Yet hundreds of gun carrying protesters rampage through state capitols and on streets without a peep from the police.

The axiom about bad apples, is not "There's only a few bad apples, so everything is fine since most of the apples are good" - the saying is that "One bad apple  spoils the whole bunch" (similar to the biblical saying that "a little leaven leavens the whole lump"). By tolerating the presence of these so-called bad apples, the good apples, if they were ever there, turn bad.