Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Goes After Miami Police Officer Who Doxed An Innocent Woman (softpedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes: After Miami resident Claudia Castillo noticed a cop speeding down the freeway without a siren, she pulled him over and told him to stop going so fast. The cop's police union chief, Javier Ortiz, decided to take the woman's private details and put them on his Facebook account, asking friends to call her and give her a piece of their mind. Of course, harassment ensued. Now, Anonymous hackers have decided to return the favor and dox the police union chief as payback. For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
> For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Up until that, the submission was good. Why the judgement in the summary? Is that trolling? Report - then let people discuss.
Many non-police don't understand police culture. As an inescapable consequence of how the brain adapts, cops understand non-cops as second-class citizens. Not only that, they largely see all non-cops as children; needing to be managed and disciplined because they are inherently immature (or just evil) people.
A civilian calling a cop out is not unlike a child trying to punish an adult for breaking a rule that only applies to children. Not only does the rule not apply (at least in the cop's mind), but the child is being sassy and uppity and disrespectful and is not allowed to punish an adult.
I am not saying this is right. Clearly it is not. I am just explaining why this sort of response is unavoidable. And cops don't start seeing the world like this just because they are jerks, but because the majority of their interaction with people fits neatly into either of two categories....person is a cop and is a decent person, person is not a cop and is a criminal. The brain cannot help but start seeing the world in these terms.
I wonder if there is a way to address the root cause...how does one keep a cop busy doing police work but also mitigate the psychological damage police work does to a person?
There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
That's interesting. I would counter to the chief that because they are allowed to do something the general public is not allowed to do (as a result of being "trained professionals"), the consequences to them should be higher than the general public rather than being exempt.
The same way that we hold licensed engineer professionals to higher standards, law enforcement should be held to a higher standard with higher rewards for demonstrated competence and higher punishments for demonstrated failure.
On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone? Do they go through a practical exercise and exam that involves a closed course with obstacles and are graded to a time standard and number of cones that can be hit? I am really curious about this.
No, "an eye for an eye" doesn't leave the whole world blind.
"An eye for an eye" is a naturally accepted form of justice. If I slap someone for no reason, I won't be shocked if I'm slapped back with the same level of force. "An eye for an eye" is a concept so natural that being slapped back is a possibility I will always consider. I may have a feeling of frustration if I'm slapped back, but I won't have a feeling of injustice. This means I won't have a desire for revenge if I'm slapped back.
Of course, I never slap someone for no reason. If I slap someone, it's because I want to take control and partially submit the other person to my will. If I'm slapped back, it obviously means my attempt to take control failed. Because of that, I may be tempted to increase the level of violence in order to accomplish my initial goal of taking control. But this new violence I will initiate won't be the results of a feeling of injustice, it won't be the result of a desire for revenge, it will be only the consequence of having failed the first time. I may feel frustration after a failed attempt, but frustration is a lot less powerful a feeling of injustice.
Second, initiating violence is generally a rational action. If I slapped someone with the goal of taking control, it's because I believe my action might be successful. If I'm slapped back (if my first attempt fail), I might decide to increase the level of violence, but again this behavior is rational. The moment I will judge my actions have no chance of success, the moment I believe the price I might pay because of my action is superior to what I might gain, I will stop initiating violence. I won't continue violence until the whole world is blind, I will stop violence when I see no gain.
The justice system works not because it avoids using the concept of "an eye for an eye", it works because the justice system is extremely powerful and the "victim" of the justice system can't do anything about it. Any form of violence against the justice system is doomed to fail. The justice system could use the "an eye for an eye" system and it will work as well.
The main reason society dropped the concept of an eye for an eye because "justice" is not the goal of the justice system. The goal of the justice system is to do what is best for the system we call "society". The justice system is about order, it is not about justice. This means that if we want justice, we have to do it ourselves. And that's what a lot of people do.