Gyroscopic Investing

http://news.yahoo.com/school-tells-cop- ... 05957.html

The cop, SWAT officer Scott Urkov, is a police officer in Coolidge, about 40 miles from the Mesa. His daughter attends Entz Elementary School in the Phoenix suburb.

“One of our parents at the elementary school is a SWAT officer and he dropped his children off at school one day in full uniform, fully armed,”? explained Mesa Unified School District spokeswoman Helen Hollands.

Later, the Entz Elementary principal contacted Urkov and requested that he never again come to school in uniform.

I weep for this nation.  I can't believe this happened in Arizona.

To be fair, we're not talking about a patrol cop's uniform.  We're talking about the "I'm going to shoot you right now" paramilitary thing.

What extremists usually miss is that context is hugely important. This guy might not have gotten a reaction at all if he had been in his regular patrol uniform. Showing up in SWAT gear is more visually frightening--in fact that's one of the purposes of the uniform. It's more out of place in a school setting.

It's like long gun open carry. Done with an AR-15 in a single-point sling at a Starbucks for the sake of activism or "desensitization", it's out of place, intimidating, and turns people off. If you open carry a traditional-looking wood-stocked bolt-action hunting rifle while wearing woodland camo and blaze orange during hunting season, nobody will bat an eyelash. Context matters.

}But once you violate the conventions by ignoring context, you've poisoned the well. If this officer had shown up in his normal uniform even with a sidearm, I doubt anyone would have cared. Now that he's pushed the boundaries too far, they've pushed back and asked him to avoid both the uniform and the gun. He could have gotten away with those things if he hadn't pushed too hard.

I'm fairly certain that this man wasn't thinking about "pushing" anything, he was dropping his kid off at school while on his way to work, hence the uniform.  The gun goes with it.  I suppose if he went to the station, picked up the gun, went and got his kid and dropped them off at school, I'd be more sympathetic, but I find it more likely that he kept his gun at home.

Why is it reasonable for this man to have to leave his gun in the trunk while dropping off his children when a "regular" LEO can wear his uniform and sidearm while dropping off his kids?  Maybe that plays into the prejudice about some guns being more bad/evil than others (something we shouldn't be supporting), but it doesn't detract from this man being a readily identifiable LEO.

RuralEngineer wrote: I weep for this nation.  I can't believe this happened in Arizona.

Are you weeping because the police offer showed up in school in SWAT gear or because of the way the school reacted to it?

Do members of the SWAT team actually go to work in full riot gear? Seems kind of strange to me.

RuralEngineer wrote: Why is it reasonable for this man to have to leave his gun in the trunk while dropping off his children when a "regular" LEO can wear his uniform and sidearm while dropping off his kids?  Maybe that plays into the prejudice about some guns being more bad/evil than others (something we shouldn't be supporting), but it doesn't detract from this man being a readily identifiable LEO.

Because perception matters. People by and large aren't scared of "regular" LEOs in "regular" uniforms. But they are frightened by SWAT troopers in scary black armor. That's really what it's all about. The school may claim their objection concerns his gun, but I think it's really about the SWAT uniform. I bet he could have gotten away with carrying his gun if he had been dressed like a "regular" LEO.

Is this fair? Maybe not. Is this the reality? Yes. And ignoring it leads to tension and friction and hurt feelings and local news stories like the type precipitated by this guy who was just trying to drop his kids off at school without thinking about the visual impact of his appearance. One might just as easily say, well, what's the problem with going around in public naked? I mean, it's totally natural and I'm not hurting anyone."

It all has to do with social expectations. Violate them, and you risk facing the consequences. That's just how human societies are.

We're in trouble as a nation because style matter more than substance and because perception drives reality.
Why?  Because people won't stop and think-- preferring rather to allow their emotions to rule the day.

Coffee wrote: We're in trouble as a nation because style matter more than substance and because perception drives reality.
Why?  Because people won't stop and think-- preferring rather to allow their emotions to rule the day.

Has it ever been different? What if a woman wore armor and weapons during medieval times? What if a black grandfather took his white grandaughter out for a walk in the 1950s? What if you tried to walk around naked during the victorian era? What if you wore a "Hillary 2020" button at the RNC?

Every society has unspoken social rules that are not fair, but that you need to avoid violating if you want to minimize the amount of drama and trouble in your life. Style has always mattered more than substance when it concerns human culture, and I suspect it always will.

Coffee wrote: We're in trouble as a nation because style matter more than substance and because perception drives reality.
Why?  Because people won't stop and think-- preferring rather to allow their emotions to rule the day.

Damn, I must be getting old.

Which side of this debate is the "stop and think" side and which side is the emotional one? Y'all have me totally confused.

Pointedstick wrote:

Coffee wrote: We're in trouble as a nation because style matter more than substance and because perception drives reality.
Why?  Because people won't stop and think-- preferring rather to allow their emotions to rule the day.

Has it ever been different? What if a woman wore armor and weapons during medieval times? What if a black grandfather took his white grandaughter out for a walk in the 1950s? What if you tried to walk around naked during the victorian era? What if you wore a "Hillary 2020" button at the RNC?

Every society has unspoken social rules that are not fair, but that you need to avoid violating if you want to minimize the amount of drama and trouble in your life. Style has always mattered more than substance when it concerns human culture, and I suspect it always will.

+1

I'm not a big PC type guy and I know that many times the school districts do some stupid things, but I get where they're coming from on this.

I can hear the conversation:

"Officer Urkov, you can't bring your daughter to school anymore because you frighten the parents.  You don't bother the kids, but the parents are just not mature enough to deal with the fact you are in law enforcement and carry a firearm.  Oh, but by the way, if there ever is a real shooter at the school please feel free to show up and risk your life protecting these kids.  The parents will appreciate it"

I'm with the school district here.

Coffee wrote: We're in trouble as a nation because style matter more than substance and because perception drives reality.
Why?  Because people won't stop and think-- preferring rather to allow their emotions to rule the day.

Style and perception have the same effect in nature. That's why birds won't eat those butterflies that look like poisonous Monarchs and a small animal with bright colors or expanding body parts can frighten off predators.

In the human world where people are getting shot all the time and where the Aurora shooter dressed in riot gear, there's not a lot of time to stop and think.

Switch the occupation "cop" with "stripper" and there would be less weeping over the school's request.  As Pointedstick said, context matters.  I can imagine a variety of different working uniforms a school might request a parent to not show up in to pick up the kids.

What's really sad is that the police officer took the matter to Facebook to complain.  At least his supervisors had a better idea:  Let it be.

I'm no fan of LEOs as most are aware. I dislike their abuses of power and complete lack of accountability. However, there is still value to society there in the ones that aren't complete monsters.

I'm surprised that the majority opinion seems to be that it's now ok to ban/shun cops from public places while in uniform for being "scary" or implying that they might be morally objectionable or offensive (i.e. a stripper uniform).

Maybe I find the military uniform particularly scary. If I could get enough people to agree with me could I get such parents banned from schools too?  Wouldn't that be uniquely American.

The cop-on-the-beat police uniform says that he's here to protect us from bad guys.  The military uniform says that he's here to protect us from invaders.

The militarized cop uniform says that he's here to shoot us.  That's how I see the difference, anyway.

Simonjester wrote: i thought the idea was to "normalize" the military police state? sounds like they pushed the envelope to far to fast...
every police department in almost every town has armored vehicles and combat swat teams, how long till we get used to seeing police dressed this way and armed with military gear...

When you see cops in riot gear, there is always that look of nervous excitement on their faces.  It's like they're saying "I really hope some rioters show up so we can try out all of this gear we bought with post-9/11 anti-terrorism federal aid.  It's such a shame that we never get to use most of this stuff."

If you think about it, the militarized police (which is largely a post-9/11 phenomenon) is really a realization of one of the principal fears that came out of the government's response to 9/11 in the first place--i.e., that the government would use that tragic event as a pretext to crack down on basically everything that citizens do that bugs the government, especially the exercise of Constitutional rights.

I like the Charlton Heston response to why a person might want to do something that is protected by the Constitution like own a firearm: "It's just a right that I choose to exercise."

So to someone who said "If you're not doing anything wrong, why is it so important to you not to have the government monitor your activities?", I would say "It's just a right that I choose to exercise."

I would love to walk up to one of these jacked-up cops dressed in paramilitary gear with his AR-15 and ask: "Quick!  Who's the enemy?"  I would love to hear the responses.

I'm kind of torn on hard-core equipment for police.

Part of me thinks that government's role is to "insure the uninsurable." This part of me wants the police forces to have reserves to deal with crazy, unlikely situations more effectively.

However, for all the reasons you don't like it, I also don't like it.  I generally think police are guys on a power-trip, who, luckily, would probably act bravely in situations where people need help and nobody else is there to do it.