When did violence become so acceptable in our society?

I mean, seriously, so first lets look right here in Atlanta.  From reading various accounts of this story (most of which can be summed up here by the AJC) an off-duty Atlanta police officer was working a second job as security at the Buckhead IHOP.  Okay, fine by that, wish we could pay them well enough that second jobs weren’t necessary, but such are things…  so they often do that, but this one was wearing his APD uniform while doing so.

All the details aren’t out, but yeah, you go to the Buckhead IHOP late at night and tell me if you ever see someone who maybe had one too many or is having a good night, etc…  so a woman tries to seperate this cop from her friend and the cop just hauls off and nails her.

Now, I don’t know where the officer is from, but my daddy taught me to never hit a woman.  This guy, obviously not the case.

Then we turn to Maryland, where in a McDonald’s a trans gendered person was using the restroom.  A couple of ladies took offense to this activity because well, there can be some confusion there, but instead of handling the situation like ladies, these two decide it’s the proper role to just beat the living daylights out of the trans gendered person who was simply trying to relieve themselves.

So…  several things here we can debate…  should off-duty officers be able to use their uniforms and police roles to make a personal profit…  probably not…  are there situations where people could feel weird by a trans gendered person using a restroom that may make some folks uncomfortable, sure…

But when did just beating the crap out of people become the answer?

Why did the second cop not calm down the situation at the Buckhead IHOP…  and why did numerous people watching the trans gendered person just getting leveled in a very uneven fight do nothing?  Seriously people, this is disturbing.

If I was ever uncomfortable with restroom arrangements, I’d just step outside and let the other person finish their business and have the room to myself.  The option of kicking the crap out of someone isn’t on the list there.

And if I’m an Atlanta cop working a second job at a restaurant, I probably shouldn’t be using my uniform and position to make a personal profit, but should I have a disturbance I’d call for on-duty cops to come handle the situation.  Especially when lives were not in danger.

But really, when did this happen?


35 Responses to When did this become acceptable?

  1. Gunner says:

    I dont know what the rules are for Atl Police but in many other Departments in GA the officers/deputies working the specials have to wear their uniforms. The business pays the police dept then the dept pays the officer. Its kinda the departments way of offering overtime without really having to pay for it.
    Most of the time you have to have been with the dept for a certain amount of time. The business owners aren’t really paying for private security they are paying to have a cop there. It’s like a bar that has a bouncer but also someone with arrest powers there.

    • Trevor Southerland says:

      If that’s the case then I’m cool with the concept, but I do think the APD has seen several cases of 4th amendment abuses and abuse of power issues to warrant more investigations into their policies.

  2. Christina says:

    I think everyone is being a pointless five year old with their arguments.

    • Trevor Southerland says:

      Is there where I say “I’m like rubber and you’re like glue, what bounces off of me sticks to you” or something along those lines?

  3. griftdrift says:

    When did it become acceptable to take two unrelated incidents and conflate them into we as a society accept of violence as a resolution?

    • Trevor Southerland says:

      Right around about the 1st amendment.

      • Jen B. says:

        1st Amendment does not apply here.

        • Trevor Southerland says:

          I’m fairly sure that I’m using my freedom of speech.

          But in a real reply… violence in society has at least become more noticeable if not actually increased.

          So I guess, if this has always been acceptable, it shouldn’t be and we should work to change this long held tradition.

          • griftdrift says:

            Straight from conflation of 2 unrelated incidence into condemnation for the entire society into my questioning of your fallacious thesis into your first amendment rights being impinged.

            Do you have anything beyond these 2 incidents, which apparently bothered you enough on a visceral level to start seeking universal answers, to show that “violence in society has at least become more noticeable if not actually increased”?

            • Trevor Southerland says:

              I’m sorry, can you show me where I said that my first amendment rights were being impinged? (Nice word, by the way.)

              I said that I was exercising my first amendment rights, but I don’t believe I ever said they were under attack.

              ~~looks over statements~~

              No, I didn’t.

              And if I go stand in the video game aisle at my local Target, Wal Mart or whatever I would certainly have proof of violence becoming more noticeable than the days of Mario stomping on a bug being a violent video game.

          • Ed says:

            Violence has increased from a society where lynchmobs were common? When pugilism was an accepted way of boys becoming men? When for show-grown men would fight each other to the death?

            Society never gets more or less anything. Things just get more or less focus.

            • Trevor Southerland says:

              Okay. Then back to my previous statement:

              “So I guess, if this has always been acceptable, it shouldn’t be and we should work to change this long held tradition.”

          • Jen B. says:

            If BfD wanted to censor your comments because it didn’t like the content, it could do so because it’s not a federal, state or local government.

            And even if it was, the 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee you the right to be shielded from someone accusing you of making a terrible argument.

            • Trevor Southerland says:

              Again, when did I say someone shouldn’t disagree with me?

              I welcome it. Go for it.

              Discussion is good. Yay, discussion!

              • Jen B. says:

                griftdrift disagreed with you when he said, “When did it become acceptable to take two unrelated incidents and conflate them into we as a society accept of violence as a resolution?”

                Your reply was, “Right around about the 1st amendment.”

                That implies that the 1st Amendment gives you right to make terrible arguments? I mean, I don’t know, you tell me what you meant by that.

                • Trevor Southerland says:

                  No, that implies that the 1st amendment gives me the right to speak, which I did.

                  I mean, from what I said you could more easily say that I was conceding that I took two unrelated incidents and conflated them into we as a society accepting violence as a resolution.

                  • Jen B. says:

                    Yes and I responded by saying the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply here. But in any event, I’m out of this since we appear to be getting nowhere fast.

                    • Trevor Southerland says:


                      This has been such fun, really, we must do it again sometime.

                      Preferably with more liquor involved.

            • griftdrift says:

              And on the second point, causation can be a dangerous path when analyzing society.

              And it often makes for strange bedfellows.

              For example, your abhorrence of violent video games and their alleged affect on society puts you and Phyllis Schlafly squarely on the same side.

              • Trevor Southerland says:

                I never said I abhor them, only that they exist. 🙂

                • griftdrift says:

                  Fine you don’t abhor them.

                  But you still made the causal connection. Which puts you hand in hand with Ms. Schlafly.

                  • Trevor Southerland says:

                    My wife wouldn’t be happy with me being hand in hand with any other woman… she sort of has a policy about that type of activity. 🙂

                    So to sum all this up, my only point was to say that I wish more people would stick up and do what’s right when violent situations break out and help to defend the defenseless.

  4. Ed says:

    Just to be clear, and I recognize this is an ancillary point, are you opposed to cops doing detail work?

    ETA: Few things are as euphoric as getting, and giving, a punch to the face. I’m also a pacifist.

    • EGaluszka says:

      This is my response:

    • Trevor Southerland says:

      I am not.

      I WISH that they got paid enough to be cops that they were able to spend that time with their families, friends, neighborhood bar buddies or television sets, etc…

      I do however think that an off-duty police man acting as a private security guard and being paid by a private business to act in that capacity, with no governmental authority role, should not wear their uniform and act as a police man.

      If I am a private security guard, my role is to protect the employees, protect the customers, protect the establishment and call the cops if stuff goes down. I would not have the right to just say “Oh, Ed’s dunk and acting a fool so I’m gonna beat the crap out of him, throw him to the floor and put him in chains.” However, an off-duty cop, especially when decked out in official government apparel has more authority than just a big guy standing at the door.

      • Ed says:

        Well private security without police uniforms do that all the time and have the right to do so. I mean I’m not sure what they are to do if stuff goes down, just watch a fight break out? Plus I’d rather have security decked as an official representative so there is more accountability.

        Anyway whatever, like so many other things I just don’t care. There’s alot more to what I have to say, if I cared I’d say it.

  5. EGaluszka says:

    I don’t even know what to say about this post. So I’ll just say I disagree.

    • EGaluszka says:

      Since apparently I’m not allowed to disagree with the thesis of a post without explaining myself, and people assume I’m pro-beatings, I suppose I will elaborate.

      The world is not a more violent place. There was a time not too long ago that someone beating a transgender person wouldn’t even be charged, let alone people call for every single bystander to be disciplined. I disagree with this course of action because it opens way too many doors. At some point someone is going to be punished for not jumping into a lake to save a drowned child. Someone will be punished for not running into a burning building to save survivors. I don’t want to discourage good samaritan behavior, but to mandate it is dangerous.

      • Trevor Southerland says:

        It’s always best to explain yourself. If you don’t explain yourself you let peoples imaginations do the work.

        And, to bring the argument from Facebook over to here… there’s a difference in doing something that requires super human strength like putting out a fire an something like stepping in to defend a defenseless person getting the life beat out of them.

        • EGaluszka says:

          It doesn’t require super human strength to run into a burning building and help people escape, but that’s beside the point. You’re attacking my example, not my thesis. You’re asking someone to put themselves at risk for a stranger, and not only is that contrary to human nature, it sets a dangerous precedent.

          I cannot and will not expect someone to live by my own moral expectations for myself. It’s that exact kind of expectation which leads to beatings like this.

          • Trevor Southerland says:

            I don’t know about you, but I burn just in the sun… so yeah, it’d be super human to run into a burning building… or if you had the proper equipment.

            I don’t expect someone to live by my moral expectations, but there should be certain standards that everyone holds firm on… like, standing up for people getting the shit beat out of them.

            • EGaluszka says:

              That’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re saying ‘I would have done this, therefore everyone should do this.’ Obviously there is a line that has to be drawn for there to be a stable society, and we disagree where that line should be drawn. That’s fine. Reasonable people can disagree. But defending your position simply based on your own ethics is wrong.

              This is going to sound like an attack, but it isn’t. Try and see that. The mindset you’re in when you push this kind of thing is the exact same one that drives people to picket abortion clinics.