Police Cadets Urged to cause PTSD

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 12:58pm

BOISE, Idaho - A state police academy leader has disavowed the slogan of the most recent graduating class urging one another to "go out and cause" post-traumatic stress disorder.

Each class at the Idaho Police Officer Standards and Training Academy is allowed to choose a slogan that is printed on its graduation programs, and the class of 43 graduates came up with "Don't suffer from PTSD, go out and cause it."

According to the Veterans Association, tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers suffer from PTSD, which causes nightmares, flashbacks and physical symptoms that make sufferers feel as if they are reliving trauma, even many years later. Crime, accidents and other trauma can cause it in civilians.

Ada County Sheriff Gary Raney, who attended the Dec. 14 graduation, pointed out the slogan to the academy's director, Jeff Black, minutes before the ceremony began, Raney said. A photograph of the program was e-mailed anonymously to news outlets throughout the state.

"That's not something we encourage or condone," Black said. "It shouldn't have been there. It was inappropriate."

Black said the class president was ex-military, and that the slogan "slipped in." He declined to identify the graduate. Black said future slogans would be vetted by academy leaders.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-27 01:04pm

Or you know, refuse the assholes who came up with it graduation due to them having apparent psychological issues.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2007-12-27 01:13pm

PTSD is nothing to joke about. I'm sure the graduating cadets meant for the remark to mean criminals, but still that was in pi$$ poor taste.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-27 01:20pm

See, we could choose to view this as a joke in poor taste. Or we can choose to view this as a statement of intent. Which choice has the potential to cause the most harm to the most people?

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2007-12-27 01:40pm

Flagg wrote:See, we could choose to view this as a joke in poor taste. Or we can choose to view this as a statement of intent. Which choice has the potential to cause the most harm to the most people?

Definitely the latter.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-12-27 03:00pm

Flagg wrote:Or you know, refuse the assholes who came up with it graduation due to them having apparent psychological issues.

It probably meant towards criminals, and most young cops think they are going to be arresting psychopathic criminals, and that's who this message was towards. Not your typical person who's made a mistake.

I think it would be very unwise to destroy the career of some young police officer who said something stupid. I'd hate to think what would happen if all us faced the possibility of our careers being destroyed over one mistake.

This cadet will go onto FTO where he'll be evaluated, and they probably will watch him a bit more closely because of what he said. There's no need to cause real damage.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-27 03:26pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Flagg wrote:Or you know, refuse the assholes who came up with it graduation due to them having apparent psychological issues.
It probably meant towards criminals, and most young cops think they are going to be arresting psychopathic criminals, and that's who this message was towards. Not your typical person who's made a mistake.

Yeah, I don't care who they "meant it towards".

I think it would be very unwise to destroy the career of some young police officer who said something stupid. I'd hate to think what would happen if all us faced the possibility of our careers being destroyed over one mistake.

He's not a police officer, he's a cadet, or he was when he and his classmates pulled this shit. And it's not like he made some off the cuff remark or quip, the fucker had that as his classes motto.

And your average person doesn't have the power a police officer does. There are enough psycho cops out there as it is, we don't need another one. They just victimize people and make the vast majority of cops, who are good, look bad.

This cadet will go onto FTO where he'll be evaluated, and they probably will watch him a bit more closely because of what he said. There's no need to cause real damage.

Right, we should give him the chance to cause real damage once he's got the power and the Blue Wall of Silence to protect his ass.

Sorry, I'd rather he be a security guard sitting in a mall watching shoplifters than a cop with a gun and the power to destroy peoples lives.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2007-12-27 03:37pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:It probably meant towards criminals, and most young cops think they are going to be arresting psychopathic criminals, and that's who this message was towards. Not your typical person who's made a mistake.

I think it would be very unwise to destroy the career of some young police officer who said something stupid. I'd hate to think what would happen if all us faced the possibility of our careers being destroyed over one mistake.

Yeah, because what the street needs is yet another cop who views his badge as a license to beat the shit out of suspects. Aren't people like this supposed to be vetted out before being let into the academy?

As was said before, he shouldn't get the chance to go out and "cause PTSD".

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 03:37pm

When faced with a graduating class having a ridiculously offensive slogan advocating causing trauma, do you..

A) Suggest there should be some action taken against the asshat or asshats responsible.

B) Assume it was a stupid joke because some people find trauma funny,

Or C) Perform a flying leap to the defense of the person responsible, pretending it doesn't matter that an ex-military police officer openly wants to cause trauma, and suggesting anyone proposing disciplinary action is wanting to 'Ruin the career of someone for saying something stupid', as if a class' slogan was an off-the-cuff remark taken out of context.

Kamakazie Sith · Post by **Kamakazie Sith** » 2007-12-27 03:59pm

SirNitram wrote:When faced with a graduating class having a ridiculously offensive slogan advocating causing trauma, do you..

A) Suggest there should be some action taken against the asshat or asshats responsible.

B) Assume it was a stupid joke because some people find trauma funny,

Or C) Perform a flying leap to the defense of the person responsible, pretending it doesn't matter that an ex-military police officer openly wants to cause trauma, and suggesting anyone proposing disciplinary action is wanting to 'Ruin the career of someone for saying something stupid', as if a class' slogan was an off-the-cuff remark taken out of context.

If it were disciplinary action that we were talking about then I'd be 100% behind you. Unless I'm mistaken we're talking about refusing graduation, and effectively firing the person responsible for a moment of stupidity for a fucking slogan.

And of course the alarmists are out in full force asking for something that if turned around on them they would think it was unfair.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2007-12-27 04:24pm

Maybe you didn't read the story. The guy thinks that police officers should go out and cause post-traumatic stress disorder. This involves inducing severe trauma. And you think this guy should be given a badge, gun and night stick?

This was not some off-the-cuff remark. It was considered and chosen with full consciousness of what it implied. This guy has no place on a police force.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 05:03pm

The article didn't say that the class president came up with it on his own, only that the class of 43 graduates chose it collectively. I doubt anyone in the class is a sociopath. It's just a joke in poor taste. Someone should probably be reprimanded for being an idiot but suggesting that the class is composed of psychopaths is a bit much.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 05:13pm

HemlockGrey wrote:The article didn't say that the class president came up with it on his own, only that the class of 43 graduates chose it collectively. I doubt anyone in the class is a sociopath. It's just a joke in poor taste. Someone should probably be reprimanded for being an idiot but suggesting that the class is composed of psychopaths is a bit much.

Eh, why? Because people don't like to admit that making jokes about causing people trauma might fall under the heading of 'Crazy in that he has no empathy for other human beings'? Or are we using a definition of sociopath that is not connected with reality?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 05:14pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:If it were disciplinary action that we were talking about then I'd be 100% behind you. Unless I'm mistaken we're talking about refusing graduation, and effectively firing the person responsible for a moment of stupidity for a fucking slogan.

And of course the alarmists are out in full force asking for something that if turned around on them they would think it was unfair.

Nice job continuing your knee-jerk. Do you have a reason to think any of these 'alarmists' you are whining about would be sociopathic enough to suggest going out and causing trauma, even jokingly? Or is this another reflexive peice of bullshit because you'd rather not read the article and think clearly, because oh my lord, there's a coppa involved.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 05:34pm

Eh, why? Because people don't like to admit that making jokes about causing people trauma might fall under the heading of 'Crazy in that he has no empathy for other human beings'? Or are we using a definition of sociopath that is not connected with reality?

People make jokes about "causing trauma" all the time without being psycopaths. It's the same continuum of thought as all those dead baby jokes people throw around. It's the same continuum of thought as Bill Hicks telling marketing execs to commit suicide.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 05:36pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Eh, why? Because people don't like to admit that making jokes about causing people trauma might fall under the heading of 'Crazy in that he has no empathy for other human beings'? Or are we using a definition of sociopath that is not connected with reality?
People make jokes about "causing trauma" all the time without being psycopaths. It's the same continuum of thought as all those dead baby jokes people throw around. It's the same continuum of thought as Bill Hicks telling marketing execs to commit suicide.

Congratulations on the appeal to popularity fallacy. Are we going to get down to the brass tacks of how you can say the person responsible has any empathy, in other words, is not sociopathic?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 05:43pm

Congratulations on the appeal to popularity fallacy. Are we going to get down to the brass tacks of how you can say the person responsible has any empathy, in other words, is not sociopathic?

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. If you actually exist in the real world and spend time with lots of different people, you'd know that there are plenty of times in which ordinary people will make jokes about causing harm to other people without much thought beyond what's funny at the time. If in a couple years someone looks at the record of this graduating class and sees that they've beaten a hundred people to death or something like that, then yes, you can probably say they're sociopaths. But making a joke, however insensitive, does not make someone a clinical psychopath. At worst it makes them a dick.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2007-12-27 06:04pm

I dont think they're sociopaths, to be honest. There is some clear clinical definitions for both sociopathy and psychopathy, lack of empathy is only one, there are at least half a dozen others probably more, and making such a claim is a bit over the top. Indeed i'd say it's impossible to tell if someone is a sociopath or a psychopath based on a single statement no matter how bizarre (with the exception of some very blatant statement like "I wanna' rape babies" which this clearly is not...at most it's a bad joke).

No doubt these guys need a good ass kicking for being such pricks but i cant seriously see them being immediately labeled as socioapths. Maybe they dont need to be cops, but they're most likely not sociopaths. Severe anti-scocial disorders like that are extremely rare, and the vast majority of people do not fall into that category. Look at the number of serial killers in history compared to the general population...it's probably something along the lines of one in so many millions or some such.

And just to be clear, i'm not defending what they said. I'm pointing out calling them sociopaths or psychoapths is extremely premature. My father was a cop actually, and a drug dealer (he and his partner knocked over drug houses and then sell the stuff on the street themselves, i know, he told me), and most likely WOULD be classified as a psychopath by every clinical definition you want to use. So i have a little experience with both corrupt cops and psychopaths, just to be clear.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-27 06:09pm

SirNitram wrote:Congratulations on the appeal to popularity fallacy. Are we going to get down to the brass tacks of how you can say the person responsible has any empathy, in other words, is not sociopathic?

Oh come off your high horse. They don't have to be clinically sociopathic (your claim and not a rational conclusion) to have poor judgment and perhaps not be the most fit to be police officers.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 06:44pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Congratulations on the appeal to popularity fallacy. Are we going to get down to the brass tacks of how you can say the person responsible has any empathy, in other words, is not sociopathic?
Oh come off your high horse. They don't have to be clinically sociopathic (your claim and not a rational conclusion) to have poor judgment and perhaps not be the most fit to be police officers.

Ah yes, it's a high horse to ask someone to use a real argument, and not a fallacy?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 06:48pm

HemlockGrey wrote:I'm not even sure how to respond to this. If you actually exist in the real world and spend time with lots of different people, you'd know that there are plenty of times in which ordinary people will make jokes about causing harm to other people without much thought beyond what's funny at the time.

It's been too long since I've debated you. Do you always repeat your fallacies over again when called on them?

'Lots of people in the world do it' is the textbook definition of an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Sociopathy seems a fair enough guess. It means lack of a conscience after all, and it's not like there's any shortage of such asshats.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 06:49pm

Ah yes, it's a high horse to ask someone to use a real argument, and not a fallacy?

You haven't even articulated an argument. Do you believe that the people who came up with the slogans were probably sociopaths?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2007-12-27 06:52pm

HemlockGrey wrote:
Ah yes, it's a high horse to ask someone to use a real argument, and not a fallacy?
You haven't even articulated an argument. Do you believe that the people who came up with the slogans were probably sociopaths?

Yes, based on the fact it seems fairly clear to me it's the same sort of lack of conscience that makes most sociopaths putter along, not giving a fuck about others. Are we going to be getting something other than 'Lots of people do that'? Because that would simply denote there's lots of sociopaths, something that's not exactly news.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2007-12-27 06:57pm

Yes, based on the fact it seems fairly clear to me it's the same sort of lack of conscience that makes most sociopaths putter along, not giving a fuck about others. Are we going to be getting something other than 'Lots of people do that'? Because that would simply denote there's lots of sociopaths, something that's not exactly news.

I don't think you know what a sociopath is. A sociopath is someone who is incapable of empathy, along with like twenty other qualifiers, not someone who makes tasteless jokes that are offensive to people they've never met.

Since you're not a mental health professional in any capacity, I'm going to go ahead and guess that you're incapable of diagnosing sociopathy in anyone, let alone in people you've never met, based only on the information in a four or five paragraph news article focused on one narrow aspect of their lives.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2007-12-27 06:59pm

SirNitram wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:
Ah yes, it's a high horse to ask someone to use a real argument, and not a fallacy?
You haven't even articulated an argument. Do you believe that the people who came up with the slogans were probably sociopaths?
Yes, based on the fact it seems fairly clear to me it's the same sort of lack of conscience that makes most sociopaths putter along, not giving a fuck about others. Are we going to be getting something other than 'Lots of people do that'? Because that would simply denote there's lots of sociopaths, something that's not exactly news.

I think you're being loose with the word "sociopath" to the point of carelessness. Sociopathy is a clinically defined condition. It's not a synonym for "asshole". In fact, since antisocial personality disorder is characterized by deceit, even if these cops were stating their intent and not just making a poor joke, by definition they wouldn't be sociopaths, just thugs.