![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
So on an email list I am on, one of the maintainers has a gay state trooper friend (whose big cop dick he got to suck off, and he is all charmed by now) who started saying he would warn the list about upcoming raids on public places. The maintainer, who is the only one who writes, asked him some questions, after other members in the group asked for it, about his work arresting men having sex in public, what he did and felt about it.
In the interviewers, the cop said
a) when he does the bust he comes down *hard* on these guys, repeatedly boasting how he tried to give them the worst 15 minutes of their lives, threatening to call their wives on the spot, tearing the men down totally
b) that he does that because "it is part of the job"
c) that he really does it because these guys having sex in public ruin it for other gay and bisexual men
d) that he puts such dreadful fear in these guys that he sometimes ended up in his own car crying about what he was doing
e) that the straight cops condone and encourage straight public sex when they find it
I was appalled that this was being sent to my mailbox as some example of our brave gay cop 'brother' 'just doing his job'. Having worked on the gay and lesbian helpline I got to take some calls from men who were molested or robbed under circumstances like this, and I felt betrayed: I was told to counsel people to go to the police, that our police gay liason wanted to hear this, and help, respectfully. Now I was finding out that the cops would either most likely approach with an attitude that would create a second victimization, or at least created the impression they would. My callers were probably right not to want to go. If anything these kind of little acts from the police to men having public sex would drive them further underground where they would be even more out of reach from health outreach or the law when they were actually mugged or raped. Terrible disservice. But the cop feels it is ok because he hopes it will scare men away from doing it again and thus he does not have to bring them to the law.
I was furious, furious, furious: about his 'just my job' excuse (that went out with WWII for people in uniform, ok?), the fact that it actually was about certain gay men makingt him look bad, about how I don't think sex makes gay men look bad but gay men terrorizing other gay men are what really makes glbts look bad, about his idea of extra-legal terror-inducing activity being necessary instead of being professional and just performing the law -- guess what: terrorizing people is not a law that was voted on by lawmakers, and is not something he has to do, it is just his choice, much as it makes him cry. I was angry in my email, outlined my objections as stated, and asked to be removed if I was going to have to read more of this.
Well, the next email was the maintainer writing that he had sent the responses to our brave gay cop and that he wanted to react to the negative ones. Well, first of all, of course we didn't understand. And we should walk a mile in his shoes. And he can't ticket the guys, current NH policy is to arrest them and take them to the station and make them face open court. So hiw little schtick -- and he immediatly started downplaying his 8 or 9 minutes of minor hell now -- was far more prefrerable, and what else could he do? Cuz he'd rather not arrest the guys. And about how tough this all was, and about how guys wanting off the list (there were two such reactions it seemed) was "ludichris".
My heart was racing when I got this one. I caustically explained how a policy towards public sex that only put gay men at a disadvantage was actually homophobic, and would not give kudos for it -- especially since it was the gay cop enforcing it while the straight cops let straight people go. That is this man had such leeway that if he could let these guys go after dressing them down, he could also just talk to them and warn them of the dangers, tell them to get sex on the internet as he said everyone who does public places should, and do a full arrest the second or thrid time he found them -- no degrading necessary, no terror necessary, and he still get them off the streets the second or third time he saw them. That I was sickened from reading this tripe, and to take me off the list.
Well, I just got the angry email from the maintainer that on a list of 500 men, after 150 reactions, the other 4 like me that were intially negative now turned round when the trooper wrote his second statements, and I was the only one who in my bitter and twisted mind stayed negative. And that I was off the list.
And that's ok, New Hampshire is too far for me to drive to go to a monthly orgy at a B&B anyway. I mean, really.
In the interviewers, the cop said
a) when he does the bust he comes down *hard* on these guys, repeatedly boasting how he tried to give them the worst 15 minutes of their lives, threatening to call their wives on the spot, tearing the men down totally
b) that he does that because "it is part of the job"
c) that he really does it because these guys having sex in public ruin it for other gay and bisexual men
d) that he puts such dreadful fear in these guys that he sometimes ended up in his own car crying about what he was doing
e) that the straight cops condone and encourage straight public sex when they find it
I was appalled that this was being sent to my mailbox as some example of our brave gay cop 'brother' 'just doing his job'. Having worked on the gay and lesbian helpline I got to take some calls from men who were molested or robbed under circumstances like this, and I felt betrayed: I was told to counsel people to go to the police, that our police gay liason wanted to hear this, and help, respectfully. Now I was finding out that the cops would either most likely approach with an attitude that would create a second victimization, or at least created the impression they would. My callers were probably right not to want to go. If anything these kind of little acts from the police to men having public sex would drive them further underground where they would be even more out of reach from health outreach or the law when they were actually mugged or raped. Terrible disservice. But the cop feels it is ok because he hopes it will scare men away from doing it again and thus he does not have to bring them to the law.
I was furious, furious, furious: about his 'just my job' excuse (that went out with WWII for people in uniform, ok?), the fact that it actually was about certain gay men makingt him look bad, about how I don't think sex makes gay men look bad but gay men terrorizing other gay men are what really makes glbts look bad, about his idea of extra-legal terror-inducing activity being necessary instead of being professional and just performing the law -- guess what: terrorizing people is not a law that was voted on by lawmakers, and is not something he has to do, it is just his choice, much as it makes him cry. I was angry in my email, outlined my objections as stated, and asked to be removed if I was going to have to read more of this.
Well, the next email was the maintainer writing that he had sent the responses to our brave gay cop and that he wanted to react to the negative ones. Well, first of all, of course we didn't understand. And we should walk a mile in his shoes. And he can't ticket the guys, current NH policy is to arrest them and take them to the station and make them face open court. So hiw little schtick -- and he immediatly started downplaying his 8 or 9 minutes of minor hell now -- was far more prefrerable, and what else could he do? Cuz he'd rather not arrest the guys. And about how tough this all was, and about how guys wanting off the list (there were two such reactions it seemed) was "ludichris".
My heart was racing when I got this one. I caustically explained how a policy towards public sex that only put gay men at a disadvantage was actually homophobic, and would not give kudos for it -- especially since it was the gay cop enforcing it while the straight cops let straight people go. That is this man had such leeway that if he could let these guys go after dressing them down, he could also just talk to them and warn them of the dangers, tell them to get sex on the internet as he said everyone who does public places should, and do a full arrest the second or thrid time he found them -- no degrading necessary, no terror necessary, and he still get them off the streets the second or third time he saw them. That I was sickened from reading this tripe, and to take me off the list.
Well, I just got the angry email from the maintainer that on a list of 500 men, after 150 reactions, the other 4 like me that were intially negative now turned round when the trooper wrote his second statements, and I was the only one who in my bitter and twisted mind stayed negative. And that I was off the list.
And that's ok, New Hampshire is too far for me to drive to go to a monthly orgy at a B&B anyway. I mean, really.
no subject
Honestly, I'm a little bothered that you were the only one out of 500 men who was willing to express your disagreement, and not back down in the face of some fairly obvious backpedaling.
no subject
no subject
Or perhaps I am just simply not impressed by a sheepsih "it's just my job" when it comes to homohating actions.
I dunno, a big chunk of me is insecure. I wish I had kept the first interview.
no subject
What an appalling story.
no subject
Perhaps, but I don't think that your reaction is an example of same.
(yes, he invoked the spectre of "think of the children!" when they walk into itat reststops)
Oh please. If the same standards are not being applied, consistently or otherwise, to straight people, then that whole argument falls completely flat.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm not *that* desperate!
Re: I'm not *that* desperate!
*shrug*
Everything is relative. :)
sweetness, light
no subject
As for the list moderator - on the Internet, opinion is endlessly malleable. Everybody cites how everyone but you supports their odious attitude. It means nothing; such "opinions" received through email are greatly filtered by the medium itself. Anyone who believes them might as well cut out the middleman and just practice self-delusion. It's so much more efficent than depending on the illusions of others.
no subject
You aren't missing anything.
no subject
no subject
Internalized homophobia, anyone?
I guess I shouldn't really be surprised, but I am. And disgusted. FJ, I think your reaction is entirely appropriate. Maybe I too have been radicalized by soc.motss, but I don't see why police resources shoule be wasted on harrassing people for consensual sexual activities, of whatever orientation.
He's right
In the Air Force, some of the most vigorous enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" comes from the same source.
Mr "Big Dik" Cop (size isn't everything) probably thinks he has to crack down hard to keep any taint/suspicion off himself.
What a pathetic creature he must be.
no subject
At the time the dept was run by retired police and the only institutionally acceptable excuse was to claim that I didn't see the person. I suspect the gay cop is in a similar situation. If so there is no safe way to reason with the men he catches in the act. There is always the possibility that someone arrested by a straight cop is going to plead that "the other cop let him go" and give a description of the gay cop.
There should be things the gay cop could do to make sure that he won't encounter any public sex. Toggling the car's sirens and lights, making a slow entrance with 2way police radio blaring....it's a very difficult situation but scaring the hell out of people with threats isn't a solution.
no subject
But he is letting them go now, after the threats and humiliation.
no subject
Whoops, I didn't mean to imply that anything he did was right. I wouldn't be surprised if terrorizing these men wasn't in part to insure they kept their mouths shut if they were arrested later... that's a pretty standard (and very sick) tactic when a non-sexual arrest is considered to take too much time and effort. Applying it this instance where people are so vulnerable only makes it worse.
I was wondering more if any kind of involvement on his part made sense.
no subject
no subject
And the rapper 'Ludacris' has forever ruined the spelling of the common english word "ludicrous".
no subject
Sadly, the situation will never change as long as police unions prevent any real, open, public supervision of their actions.[1]
[1] In Austin, Texas, at the moment, the police union is blocking the "public advocate's" report of a police shooting. Luckily, the City Manager is standing her ground and blocking a pay raise (it's optional in the contract) until the union agrees to make the report public.
no subject
no subject
You don't need me telling you that you did right, but I'll say it anyway.
At least our lesbian sherriff here doesn't have to do the shagbashing herself, she's got an entire goon squad of deputies to hand out the $500 citations for her (when they might well be out chasing the people who're robbing area banks every other day).
I don't necessarily think the guy's a closet case lashing out to preserve his facade. If I know my hierarchical thinking, he's either stopped examining things in the larger schema or is simply accepting what he's handed without thinking about it.
no subject
It's much easier to turn a blind eye to such travesties than to speak up against them. That you did so is praiseworthy. In my book anyway.