69 my 99 bitches? 86 it!
Wednesday 28 August 2013, 4.54am HKT
CASHING in on my unbelievably successful streak subliming the movies, I’m blowing my mental capital on another heist for your own recognizance. Post will be ‘in character’; some semi-adult language follows.
SUPER SUBTERRANEAN LIFE LESSONS FROM
The Taking of Pelham 123
(2009, Columbia Pictures/MGM)
Directed by Tony Scott
John Travolta, Denzel Washington, James Gandolfini,
Victor Gojcaj, John Turturro, Luis Guzmán, etc
My preference? The 1974 version was better, mainly because an English-accented hijacker (Robert Shaw then) tends to feel more unfuckwithable. That quality is made up for with Victor Gojcaj (‘goy-chai’), who IS an ex-con turned actor in real life specially scouted for this film.
Don’t even mess with nice people who have problems
For anyone who’s got 99 problems already, getting one more is like the difference between having ate toast with artificially flavoured jam and toast with organically grown jam. Too far down the line to care anymore.
More important for the 99’er is how long will the crap have to be stayed in for — and which super-absorbent 3-ply person to set up for the inevitable ass-wiping. Now with a badass 99’er, you can count on him not even needing to count 1-2-3.
Nice people, when they tip over (‘snap’), become much worse than the badasses.
Got 99 problems, too busy already; don’t do it unless you can do the stretch.
Two-way street, my friend
Gain control or influence over others, and you as ‘controller’ will have also built up rapport with your controllees. Not necessarily good or pleasant rapport, but rapport all the same. Over long enough time, you sweet-talking Cool Hand Lukes are gonna to be ‘tight’ — like a Happy Ring on a pulsating male reproductive organ.
You didn’t get control over others because you had ‘power’ over them. It’s the surrounding circumstances that made it possible for others to cede control, and your involvement is just an incidental detail.
Now take things too far with your controllees/rapporteurs, and whoever is still left alive will turn at you using that rapport. They’ll squeeze the bejesus out of your testicles till the pips pop out.
(Kind of reminds me of Kevin Bacon’s character in the ending scene of Death Sentence (2007) being told, “Look at you, you look like one of us…”)
Don’t get along with others, so can’t connect; get in or get out.
Religion, especially when reasonable, is much more intimidating
Religion, when used in even the most superficial way, scares the socks off the most hardened. It’s like, you’re always guaranteed a seat on public transport with no more than a T-shirt with the words “Jesus Saves!” or “Believe in Christ today!” Everyone stays away like you’re the devil with Black Death.
If you’re the reasonably reasonable and reasoning kind, your visible religious ‘devotion’ is going to unnerve anyone who is passionate in whatever the hell they do or believe.
You’re no fanatic; they’re forced to reason with you. You’re open to reason; they lose their heads completely in the fray. You see the flaws in your own beliefs; they don’t know what the hell to believe about you or whether to diss you or embrace you or laugh at you. You take time out to pray — and they take to prayers too, hoping furiously that they could play The Power and The Glory number on you to make things stop, which doesn’t work because you’re r-e-a-s-o-n-a-b-l-e, my funk soul bruther.
Lacking in passion, gullibility as a defence mechanism; resort to worshipping money.
Law enforcement never underestimates
If it’s “Theirs is not to reason why but to do or die” for the military, then for the police it must be theirs is not to underestimate but to leave nothing out. Everything in the eyes and mental framework of a policeman is given a proper and correct ‘positioning.’
‘Positioning,’ just to be clear, means a position that is changeable, depending on the beliefs and suspicions of the beholder at any given time.
Law-enforcement people are not people from the educated classes (notwithstanding their actual individual educational qualifications). They don’t have that background and temperament to fall back on to fix or correct things. They know this in themselves too. That’s why they want to get things ‘right’ the first time round. Ergo, positioning.
No time to figure things out … ’coz you ain’t worth it
Getting things ‘right’ is ‘right’ according to their specifications, their requirements, their self-set objectives. Those don’t usually or even necessarily coincide with YOUR objectives or OUR notions of ‘fairness.’ The fact that you’re now within their radar (even if accidentally) automatically sets you out as a a scumbag or a potential scumbag — either way, not worth the effort to figure out right vs. wrong.
The police have ways of making you take it up the ass, my hairless little friend.
Those who’ve had some first-hand (even purely visual) experience of the Indonesian police of the 1960s and ’70s should know what I’m driving at.
Coppers of that Javanese Empire in those days just saddle up every day with a shoot-to-kill convention for dealing with fluid situations. Better to shoot dead some poor, half-scared, half-witless, half-dressed “criminal” in broad daylight for a traffic violation like transporting that foul-smelling fruit the durian in unclosed boxes than to waft the bigger stink of police paperwork and arguments with cleverdicks like lawyers. Human error (of the variety “So I’m stupid, bite me!”) is f@cking unchallengeable and off-the-hookable.
To protect (themselves) and to serve (you to the bloodhounds)
Civilians are not people. Civilians are fodder for policing. Civilians are collateral damage that is potentially useful for rebadging into victims or casualties if resources are inadequate for advancing the PR-buzzworded objectives of the policing policy soup du jour. Your experience of being a collateral ‘damage’ will be somewhat more permanent or terminal. The authorities can claim a higher budget for preventing casualties; you can claim bad luck. Adios, motherf@cker.
Two jobs vs. one
However vicious or cool-headed or organised, criminals are not very good at their jobs. They always have two conflicting jobs — the actual ‘job’ itself, and the job of going on the lam. Three, if you count in fencing the goods.
Policemen, no matter how stupid they may seem, are actually bloody good at their jobs. They know practically everything there is to know about crime. They know how to describe crime in the worst way imaginable. They’re useless at writing letters, but they’re damn good writing up an incident report admissible as evidence. And they also know that without crime (and the occasional crime wave and the corresponding ‘war on crime’), they’d be out of a job. Since a policeman’s pay is shite, it takes real dedication.
If you’ve ever been to law school, you’d have classmates who are actual cops. If you’re not too idealistic, not too flashy, not to learned, not too stuck-up, not too lower-classed — they’d confide in you a few morsels of ‘facts of working at the front lines’ (over seized booze and contraband tobacco scheduled for accidental loss from the Customs and Excise evidence pound through coordinated ‘human error,’ whilst lovingly showing off their contraband firearms confiscated from hapless druglords):—
- they know petty crime doesn’t mean a thing
- but they make mountains out of molehills from petty crime, mainly because professional criminals are able to ‘answer back’
- petty crime is “prevented” with stop and search, profiling (not necessarily racial), loaded questions, and various other ‘techniques’ (such as framing)
- petty crime is “stopped” with harsh sentences
- there is an expectation that points 3 and 4 will lead to the convict coming out again to do serious crime (because of the injustice of it all)
- there is an understanding that serious crime advances the overall police budget
- serious criminal bigwigs are targets for building rapport under the general heading of intelligence-gathering, mainly because of the maxim “Be on good terms with everyone on the way up, because you’ll never know who you’ll meet on the way down”
One ‘fact’ for each day of the week, you scumbag lowlife robber of innocent little old ladies. Why can’t you be a criminal kingpin, you unreasonable sonofabitch?
This is not a joke or defamation. It’s stark raving reality. You’d realise this super quickly when you sit next to The Boys in Blue in class, and occasionally have to ‘tutor’ them in some (non-criminal) subjects (like conveyancing, which they 100% can’t get through into).
“The next step is ‘discovery’ of title deeds.”
“Will a search warrant be necessary for that?”
— An actual question from my police classmate in a property law class
Cops have a job to do; just don’t expect that to mean help
No disrespect to policemen and similar other types of law-enforcement personnel for what I’m about to say. On an individual basis, many policemen are actually upstanding and compassionate human beings.
But the police, as a collective whole, is a different kettle of fish. They’re marinated differently.
In practical terms, ‘police’ as a collective (never mind as an organisation) anywhere on Earth is quite ineffectual when it comes to solving crimes that involve no firepower, no bloodletting by the perp, or no immediate arrest and booking.
I’m sure many law-enforcement types (privately, individually) will agree with me on that. It’s not like the officers themselves individually don’t want to do greater good. It simply comes down to a bloodless, ruthless assessment of their personal qualities correlated with their training.
Any kind of wrongdoing (civil, criminal, triable either way) that involves suit-wearing perps — or police officers needing to pore over six or more pages of documentation or to obtain the approval from the favourite local District Attorney (a.k.a. Crown Prosecutor, Director of Public Prosecutions, etc) — that crime is going to be too complex for the general run of policemen to handle in any effective, efficient or effectual way.
In public view, many police officers vehemently object to this. In private, however, many of the same officers have told me I’m right. (You have to take my word for it, unfortunately.) Honestly, I wouldn’t want to hear police officers agreeing with me on this in public.
Forget what the movies portray. The truth is, 90% of law-enforcement officers worldwide are slightly below-average educated to secondary (middle) school level.
I’m not trying to be rude or insulting, or to insinuate something. The highly regarded United Nations Police has to carry out police work in some of the most unpoliceable conditions imaginable. Yet UNIPOL’s own recruitment specification is 100% silent on minimum schooling or academic requirements.
Not experienced enough, can’t say for sure; not expecting much.
I won’t pretend that academic requirements don’t vary with the job. However, when a ‘minimum requirements’ document or webpage cannot put in even six simple words like “Minimum [x] years of secondary education,” then we know we’re walking into fog-misted, mushy marshland territory in a secondhand bikini in winter.
(To UNIPOL’s defence, it does require a minimum 60% pass in French and English proficiency, and that suggests good schooling is needed in candidates.)
No disrespect to my ‘Five-O’ classmates and friends from law school, but MOST of them got into the police with quite threadbare school-leaving certs. Most of them also graciously concede (privately) that I’ve hit the mark about them in this department, thankfully.
The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) half-sheet poster
Inflation increased the ransom to $10 million by 2009
If my perceived offensiveness for the above isn’t already skyhigh in the eyes of past and present law-enforcement personnel, let’s try another tack.
Not to put too fine a point on things, any sort of middle-schooler who has to wear a uniform at work IS on balance of probability less likely to be the sort to successfully investigate uni-educated clever-clogs who wear suits and tasteful jewellery to daily work and pay lunch with medium- or high-denomination banknotes.
Police successes with smart(er) criminals are often the result of that individual smart-arse criminal having been too clever by half and bungled something up. Or even more usually from snitching (Belfast-speak: ‘touting’) by partners in crime.
It’s an incredibly cynical view, even if I say so myself. But many tell me mine is also a highly accurate one, especially coming as it does from my line of work as a financial printer. Draw your own conclusions.
Please, I’m more than willing to change my mind in this department. For the moment, I’d rather rely on my own sense and experience-based insight until something out there tells me different.
Some people don’t want to know this. Fine, then be happy and slip into a well-deserved coma.
Coma is also an off-axis aberration in telescopes
How’s your telescope?
MAKE MY DAY, PUNK, AND THREATEN ME WITH YOUR COMMENTS
© The Naked Listener’s Weblog, 2013. (B13280)