Joel Rosenberg is fond of calling people who place blind faith in police badgelickers. Not that he’s got anything against police, per se, but that he’s not inclined toward blind faith in anyone. So badgelicker came immediately to mind when I read Turley’s post about a disgusting clash between a couple of Wisconsin National Guardsmen and a pair of cops.
The guardsmen, both of whom have served two tours of duty in Iraq, were in the Dells for weekend training and were stopped by police officers Wayne W. Thomas and Collin H. Jacobson early the morning of June 1 and accused of having urinated in public, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Madison.Is this supposed to be a man thing? A “guys with guns” thing? A Wisconsin thing? My problem is not limited to what sort of psychological deficiency causes two men, police officers, to even consider telling others to do such a thing. My problem is that two National Guardsmen, both of whom have served two tours of duty in Iraq, would even consider, no less perform, such an act. To avoid a citation? Not even to avoid a damn good beating is this normal conduct.
The officers pointed out a wet spot in an alley that they thought was urine, the lawsuit states, but the guardsmen, Sgt. Anthony R. Anderson, of West Bend, and Specialist Robert C. Schiman, of Kaukauna, denied having relieved themselves in the alley.
In order to prove that it was not their urine and avoid a citation, Thomas and Jacobson made Anderson and Schiman lick the ground and scrape mud up with their hands and lick it, according to the lawsuit.
Schiman also was made to eat a plant that was drenched in the liquid, the lawsuit states.
It’s not clear what pathology this reveals, what deep-seated psychological need was left unfulfilled or overfilled, but I fear that this facially gross story reveals some deeply troubled issues that are normally hidden from polite company. This is not the sort of thing that happens amongst people of even moderately normal mental health. It is not so much a story about police abuse, but a story about sick men, all of whom bear arms to some greater or lesser extent, and are charged with the protection of American society. Is this a reflection of some psychological impairment that pervades those who make the choice to serve as society’s protectors?
What would possibly drive two police officers to want to direct two national guardsmen to do such a thing? And worse yet, what would drive two national guardsmen to do it? There is something very wrong here. Very wrong indeed.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It would be hard to find much more wrong in the story than what has been reported.
Seems to me that a “trip downtown” would have been worth it in this case. I’d like to know how this evolves.
19 and 20 yo? I thought a person’s brain didn’t fully mature until about 26 yo.
The only good thing I can see in this is that one of the officers was fired the same day as the incident and another was suspended for two weeks without pay. At least the department showed immediate initiative instead of placing officers on “administrative duty” with pay while “investigating.”
And yea, what’s up with giving police authority to 19 and 20 year olds?
The public doesn’t realize how much power LEOs have – often unchecked – and how easy it is for some to sink to total depravity with that power.
But what about the two guardsmen? It doesn’t give their age, but I still can’t fathom why they would have done this? It’s not like the cops put guns to their head. The threat was that if they didn’t lick their urine, they would get a citation. Why would anyone do that to avoid a citation?
I can only speculate. Maybe the guardsmen had a few beers. Maybe that combined with what they had hammered into them in the military about submitting to those in authority. Maybe it was that these two particular guys coincidentally lacked even the most basic self-assertion skills.
Whatever the combination of factors was, I agree, it is still unfathomable. It is bizarre on both ends – the cops and guardsmen.
And yea, what’s up with giving police authority to 19 and 20 year olds?
It’s a Wisconsin thing, along with cannibalism and, err, “animal husbandry.” Tyler Peterson, the Wisconsin cop who went apeshit and murdered six folks at a party because his girlfriend broke up with him was one of the baby cops (and, to be fair, he didn’t get put on a paid vacation while it was investigated, him being dead, and all) was another one of their 20-year-old wonders, and got the fulltime gig at 19. (He’d recently completed his year of probation when he went on his rampage.)
Short of the two guardsmen being gutless wonders (despite multiple tours in Iraq), I can think of a few other reasons:
If they were on training, they would also be subject to the UCMJ. They’d be hit with public indecency and might even have to register as sex offenders. They could also have served time in a military prison as a result. All of that may have been going through their minds.
I hate to think that their command would take that sort of action against them even if they had urinated in public but some commands are like that.
For the record, I’m not saying that they are gutless wonders but the guardsmens’ actions don’t scream “courageous heroism in the face of extraordinary adversity.”
Yes, at which point it begins to atrophy. Therefore no-one either younger or older than 26 should be held responsible for their decisions. Fortunately, I’m 27.
I’m sorry to be a bit flip, but demeaning young people’s cognitive abilities is misguided enough without this new trope, which attempts to biologically validate it. It’s even more problematic that many of those who demean said young people’s abilities also ride a very high horse about “our troops” – overwhelmingly the very young people they deride.
The whole thing is bazaar and I think Shawn’s take on it sounds about right but who knows.As for 19-20 year old police officers, you can not get a Commercial Drivers license to drive a tractor trailer until you are 21 for good reason.
Part of the answer to your question may be SERE training (or its functional equivalent).
“In addition to the group beatings, waterboarding, electric shock, sleep deprivation, sound/noise torture, starvation, dehydration, he was also forced to eat human feces and vomit, in accompaniment with the beatings.”
[Note: the link goes to Susie Bright’s Journal, the content of which may be too indelicate for your more fragile readers.]
Just awful. But that could explain why.
By the way, your second sentence is just about the nicest thing anybody has ever said about me; it’s appreciated.
Is there any way to contact SPC’s Anderson and Schiman to let them know that there’s a lot of citizens who have their back should they decide to legally pursue this case?
“Is this a reflection of some psychological impairment that pervades those who make the choice to serve as society’s protectors?”
I think so. Some insights into the mindset of cops here:
http://www.policecrimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4863