Unethical Quote Of The Month: President Donald J. Trump

“And when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon—you just see them thrown in, rough—I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody—don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?”

The President of the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave, and where no citizen is presumed guilty and is protected by the Bill of Rights, in a speech to Long Island law enforcement officials.

Ugh. What an idiot. Here we are in a societal racial schism with alleged police brutality at its core, and President Trump decides it’s the perfect time to publicly endorse beating up suspects on their way to jail.

Naturally, being professionals and having functioning ethics alarms, the International Association of Chiefs of Police as well as various police departments and chiefs released statements stressing the need for police to treat all people with respect.  Darrel Stephens, the executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, said that the President’s words were harmful to police departments that are trying to rebuild trust.  He also added that the laughter and applause of those officers in attendance ” reinforces that there’s sort of a wink and a nod about these things, when that’s simply not the case,.”

Blue Lives Matter then tweeted that “Trump didn’t tell police to go out and brutalize people as the media would have you believe. It was a joke.”

Of course it was a joke—an irresponsible, reckless, inappropriate, harmful, stupid, stupid, stupid joke. That’s a rationalization, not an excuse.

I wonder if the new Chief of Staff could talk the Secret Service into allowing him to post an Amazonian blow-gun sniper with a tranquilizer dart at all Presidential speeches, with instructions to puff hard any time the President starts to go off script?

Probably not…

__________________________

Source: ABA Journal

32 Comments

Filed under Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Quotes, Government & Politics, Incompetent Elected Officials, Law & Law Enforcement, Leadership, Race, Rights

32 responses to “Unethical Quote Of The Month: President Donald J. Trump

  1. valkygrrl

    I wonder if the new Chief of Staff could talk the Secret Service into allowing him to post an Amazonian blow-gun sniper with a tranquilizer dart at all Presidential speeches, with instructions to puff hard any time the President starts to go off script?

    Probably not…

    Microphone on a dead-man’s switch that the chief of staff holds?

  2. A constitutional amendment could establish the blow dart guy as a 4th branch of government check and balance.

  3. Steve-O-in-NJ

    It doesn’t help that popular culture is sometimes OK with police brutality, i.e. NYPD Blue’s Andy Sipowicz smacking suspects around, even telling one who was an immigrant “Hey, ya got yer green card? Here’s somethin’ they don’t teachya in civics class!” right before a knee to the groin so hard you’ll feel it at home if you watch it, or Chicago PD’s Hank Voight burning a suspect’s face on his own stove or smashing another suspect’s hand with a pool cue. In the meantime we in the audience sit back and cheer, because the jerk had it coming, and a beating at the hands of the cops is just a little bonus to whatever punishment the system metes out.

    The problem is that in real life you can’t always be wing-ding certain the suspect IS in fact a piece of garbage deserving of a severe beating. The one brutality case I had involved the officer simply getting impatient with a WOMAN who apparently didn’t get out of his way fast enough, dragging her from her car, beating her in broad daylight, then throwing her in a cell, just because his ego was bruised. I don’t even want to say what that ended up costing.

    • Chris

      Even left-leaning shows often seem to have little problem with police brutality, and when they do, it’s only insomuch as it reveals that a hero is “damaged” in a way that makes them interesting and cool. Superhero narratives have a problem with this too. Luke Cage and Supergirl are two recent examples of superhero shows that try to appeal to a liberal demographic and contain explicitly political themes: Luke Cage directly addresses Black Lives Matter, while Supergirl is explicitly feminist (and has made lots of digs at Trump this season).

      On Luke Cage, there’s a black female cop named Misty Knight who roughs up suspects several times. She gets scolded by her boss, but the narrative seems to side with her. On Supergirl, the biggest perpetrator of brutality is Supergirl’s sister Alex, who works for a secret government agency called the DEO. She also roughs up suspects for information. Both characters have lots of awesome traits, and I enjoy them both as a whole, but their forays into police brutality send a dangerous message, especially as both of them are held up by their respective shows as “strong female characters,” and the fact that Knight is herself black while Alex is a lesbian adds another level of political complication on to their actions. But their shows always seem to come down to either “They had to do it” or “Sympathize with how damaged and emotional they are instead of thinking about the suspects whose rights they’re violating.”

      • Alex

        Even on The Shield, where the cops are most certainly *not* the good guys, police brutality is mostly treated as part of the job.

        • Chris

          See, I actually think it’s more defensible on The Shield, precisely because no one pretended those cops were the good guys. On the shows I mentioned, they’re the heroes, and occasional police brutality is, at best, a small mistake they need to learn from.

          • Steve-O-in-NJ

            Not even that, it’s considered a necessary part of removing the undeserving from society and a bonus punishment for those already deserving of punishment. In real life, any precinct or squad commander who looked the other way on his men taking someone in an alley or bouncing them off the walls of the interrogation room would be in a LOT of trouble for letting a culture like that exist in his command. On TV cops (and other emergency personnel) get away with all kinds of crap that would get you fired in real life because you can’t let a series lead go. However, when it’s a recurring or supporting or one-shot character, or even a series lead who is being written out for whatever reason, justice is often swift and unforgiving.

            NYPD Blue’s Andy Sipowicz uttered racist and homophobic rants that weren’t ok 20 years ago openly, drank on the job, and beat the tar out of suspects regularly, yet at the end of the series, after 12 years of this behavior (though he backed off it a bit as the years passed) he was promoted to squad commander and saluted like a hero. Chicago PD’s Hank Voight not only beat and tortured suspects with regularity but committed at least two outright murders, his protégé Erin Lindsay covered up one of those murders, and his lancer Jay Halstead has been involved in more shootings in four years than any three cops in the real world might be involved in in twice that. Yet Erin got a sweet new job with the FBI just as the walls were about to close in on her and the other two are still at it.

            On the other hand, NYPD Blue’s Mike Roberts, who was intended only as a temporary supporting character, and Roy Larson, a one-shot, were respectively sacked as soon as sleazy doings involving a girlfriend were discovered and as soon as a drug test came back positive (apparently at that time testing had changed to where decongestant couldn’t be used to hide methamphetamine use). The sort-lived Brooklyn South saw a one-shot officer sacked pretty much instantly for a homophobic beating.

            Ethics change depending on the importance of the character.

      • Wayne

        Which is the bigger problem today Chris? “Police brutality” or cops being killed by perps? This is a litmus test.

        • Chris

          Weird question, made even weirder by you putting “police brutality” in quotation marks. The topic we were discussing was police brutality and its encouragement by a Republican president, and even its favorable treatment in the liberal media, at least when fictional characters do it.

          Cops being killed by perps is very, very rare; 135 cops were killed in the line of duty last year. That’s about .1% of all police in the US. Now, police brutality doesn’t usually rise to the level of unlawful killing, but I’d wager that police brutality of some level happens more often than murders of cops. Of course, dying is worse than being roughed up.

          So I can’t answer your question.

          • Chris, I agree with your answer here. Not enough nuance to make that question work.

            Now I have a comment. I like how you used the .1% statistic to make a point. It puts things in context to have a ‘feel’ for nuance.

            Like changing 200 plus years of tradition and law to accommodate .003% of the population.

            • Sue Dunim

              Like changing 200 plus years of tradition and law to accommodate .003% of the population.

              I have no idea what you’re talking about.

              Changing 4000 plus years of tradition and law to accommodate 13% of the population – yes, the events of the 1860s did that.

              .003% – that’s 3 in 100,000 – that’s pretty rare. Are you referring to full blood Ojibwa? Men with 46,XX “female” chromosomes and no SrY gene on an chromosome? Even that’s 1 in 22,000.

              Medal of Honour winners? State legislators?

              • My bad, Chris. Trans have been estimated to compromise .003% of the US population. I have heard that in many places, but have not substantiated the number myself.

                The changes were, of course, bathroom traditions and laws.

                • Sue Dunim

                  Which laws? Until NCs legislation, there weren’t any banning Trans people from using restrooms that matched their appearance, as long as they weren’t there for a nefarious purpose. Same with everyone else.

                  In practice, any trans or non trans woman whose appearance was insufficiently feminine could and would get harassed in some jurisdictions, and victims would sometimes get charged under the usual catchalls of causing a public disturbance nonviolently resisting arrest, manifesting the appearance of soliciting for prostitution, or even “nefarious purpose” just because she was there.

                  Laws specifically permitting Trans people to use public restrooms didn’t always prevent this. Threats and actual rapes by prison guards while awaiting trial encouraged plea deals in even the most bogus cases.

                  Outside the Deep South and a few other places, this illegality was relatively rare though. Traditionally, anyone who looked sufficiently feminine had little to fear from extralegal harassment, and nothing at all from the law.

                  They still don’t. Not in 49 states.

                  Those who look insufficiently feminine are ostensibly protected in 16 states and over 200 cities and counties, even in places like Tennessee and Kentucky. Though the Tennessee ones are over-ridden by state legislation, not everyone knows that, so their preventative effects are largely intact.

                  Perhaps I should mention that it was only after the Civil War that sex segregated public restrooms were introduced in the US. Even then,there were often three kinds – Ladies, Gentlemen, and Coloured. So sex segregation was only partial at first.

                  The 0.003% figure comes from a single survey.
                  From 1962.
                  In Scandinavia.

                  More recent surveys worldwide, using larger sample sizes, put it a bit higher. About 0.04% for the minority who have been able to afford surgical treatment in the USA, so this is a safe, conservative lower bound.

                  Until relatively recently though, about a decade ago, the 60s Scandinavian figures were still being quoted by the APA. The absurdity eventually forced them to update the figures with better data, despite the relative obscurity of the issue.

                  Some good reading on the issue is at http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html

                  • Hi Sue. I appreciate the source you provided. I note that the numbers there are almost 20 years old, for whatever that is worth. Would it be more now? Less? The same?

                    The paper has such jaw dropping numbers such as “…we discover to our amazement that at least one out of every 2500 persons who were originally male in the U. S. has ALREADY undergone… [surgery] …to become female!”

                    More of the same assertions are scattered throughout that paper, with numbers taken from users of transgender web sites (again, roughly 20 years ago) used as true statistical data.

                    This data is ridiculous. You are seriously asserting that in a town of 5,000 two men will have been surgically changed to women, generally speaking. I suggest that if such an epidemic had been occurring over the past half century that more attention would have resulted. Instead, the ‘trans’ thing was unheard of until recently. The numbers do not pass a sniff test, nor a rational logical assessment.

                    But lets accept your .04% number for the sake of this post. How does that change by statement that progressives are negatively impacting 99.96% of the population to cater to .04%? That is not reasonable.

                    In practice, any trans or non trans woman whose appearance was insufficiently feminine could and would get harassed in some jurisdictions, and victims would sometimes get charged under the usual catchalls of causing a public disturbance nonviolently resisting arrest, manifesting the appearance of soliciting for prostitution, or even “nefarious purpose” just because she was there.

                    Sources? These are very broad claims, as if this were common knowledge when that is not true at all. You are claiming that masculine appearing women get harassed pretty much EVERY time they use a public restroom, in some jurisdictions. Which ones? Sources about those jurisdictions. Where are the lawsuits? Such treatment of a woman would not be tolerated by men in a community, especially 30 to 50 years ago. Again, does not pass the sniff test.

                    Laws specifically permitting Trans people to use public restrooms didn’t always prevent this.

                    We have laws against murder, against theft, and so on. They do not prevent those crimes either. What they do is sanction the offenders. Progressives act like a law will change human behavior, despite thousands of years of evidence to the contrary. Laws simply give society a method to protect itself from such criminals, after the fact.

                    Threats and actual rapes by prison guards while awaiting trial encouraged plea deals in even the most bogus cases.

                    Sources? How is this different from anyone else in jail awaiting trial? Young men, many women, and incapacitated inmates would be as vulnerable to such abuse. If such tactics were used, they would be used against all (this is human nature) and the scandal would have broken into public knowledge. Yes, there are cases of abuse in prisons. There is nothing to suggest that ‘trans’ inmates were the specific target is such cases. Your assertion implies this is prevalent and common. This is an intent to deceive, building your case on facts not in evidence.

                    Outside the Deep South and a few other places, this illegality was relatively rare though.

                    This is a blue coast progressive elitist smear, plain and simple. Provide sources that there is a difference between the South and anywhere else. Progressives conflate racial abuses with any abuses commonly, and the South is routinely portrayed as commonly violating civil rights when this problem exists everywhere. ‘Trans’ is not a racial issue and has nothing to do with this common misconception. How dare you!

                    Perhaps I should mention that it was only after the Civil War that sex segregated public restrooms were introduced in the US. Even then,there were often three kinds – Ladies, Gentlemen, and Coloured. So sex segregation was only partial at first.

                    So it is your contention that men and women used the same restroom at the same time before the civil war? Bullshit. Societal mores prevented such a notion, and mentioning it is a half truth, designed to imply that the natural order is what progressives are pushing for today.

                    • ““Perhaps I should mention that it was only after the Civil War that sex segregated public restrooms were introduced in the US. Even then,there were often three kinds – Ladies, Gentlemen, and Coloured. So sex segregation was only partial at first.””

                      So it is your contention that men and women used the same restroom at the same time before the civil war? Bullshit. Societal mores prevented such a notion, and mentioning it is a half truth, designed to imply that the natural order is what progressives are pushing for today.

                      That and literally any “public restroom” statistic is born in the post civil war era… from appearance of sex segregated restrooms to the appearance of one legged men named Fred who prefer eating vanilla ice cream in the rain started using “public restrooms” at this point.

                      Why? Because “public restrooms” themselves (in their modern sense) were born in this era with the advent of better toilet tech.

                      Before then I imagine that “public restrooms” were few and far between.

          • Wayne

            That’s leaving out something important Chris: They was a a 10% rise in cop killings in 2016 and a 20% rise in 2017 over 2016. So how do you deal with these facts Chris? I hope a cop is around if some thug decides to go after you!

            • Chris

              There’s nothing for me to “deal with,” Wayne. You asked me a nonsensical question designed to take the focus off the topic under discussion–police brutality–as if someone who cares about that subject can’t possible also be against cop-killers. I posted one relevant stat, with no pretense that I was offering a full analysis, and you responded that I’m “leaving out” other relevant stats, even though when you take those into account the percentage of cops killed in the line of duty is still rather small. You ended on a sentence that was nothing but partisan bloviating, again based on the false premise that I have something against cops, a premise that has absolutely no basis in any part of this discussion. There is no part of your last two comments that was not a non-sequiter. You are engaged in tribal chest-thumping, not discussion, and the type of comments you’re writing here would be more appropriate at Breitbart than Ethics Alarms.

              • Wayne

                Just how was my comment nonsensical? Of course thugs who are arrested are going immediately to claim police brutality. But no! You seem to be blind to this and to the increasing rise of cop killings.

                • Chris

                  We were not talking about thugs claiming police brutality, we were talking about Trump and the media glorifying police brutality. The fact that we were not talking about what you want us to talk about does not mean we are “blind” to what you want us to talk about.

  4. Wayne

    From “Law and Order”:

  5. Rip

    The darter could be a special secret service agent- protecting the president from himself! The president’s statements though show the much more for us to be alarmed about!

  6. A darter is too… public. Is a leg cuff remote controlled taser too much to ask for? Just a little twitch is enough for my dogs to stop bad behavior, after they have been hit a couple of times…

    • wyogranny

      I used to think I’d like to have a little mental cattle prod. When people do stupid things I could give them a quick zap just to help them adjust their thinking. Then it occurred to me that that might be just the tiniest bit coercive. I would make a very bad god.

      • Sue Dunim

        But apparently a good Tennessee sheriff’s deputy.

        http://boingboing.net/2017/08/01/ill-keep-doing-that-until.html

        In my naivity, as a Cold Warrior, I used to think that it was only the other side where such things were legally unpunished. That when such things happened, rarely, the full might and majesty of the law descended on these few bad apples, these rogue elements.

        Now they’re unafraid to do it on camera, and even leaving obvious burn marks, safe in the knowledge that while the President “disapproves”, nudge nudge wink wink, at worst there’ll be a civil suit against the county, and no punishment for them.

  7. Pennagain

    Uh, what script?

    • He usually has a script; it was especially obvious in the Boy Scout speech. The White House sends out the prepared remarks in advance, and he just deviates or ignores it, depending on how he feels at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s