Gallows Humor
By“You’ll be pleased to know we got him twice for ya!”
These were the comforting words New York’s Finest had for a mugging victim whose teenage assailant, armed with a fake 9-mm handgun, was shot dead a few blocks from where I live. The cops fired 22 shots, hittting him twice. The ordeal was recounted by the victim in this first person article which appeared in the New Zealand Herald (via Dailyheights).
Ordinarily, I would have been disgusted by the cops’ attitude. The dead mugger was 16-year-old Javaughn Higgins. Although at the tme of the shooting Higgins was on $150,000 bail in connection with the killing of a man in another mugging incident in May, is that any excuse for the NYPD to be so casual about killing a boy?
At the beginning of this year I spent a couple of weeks at NYPD headquarters as an intern on the crime desk of the New York Sun. During those first few days, I have a distinct memory of being shocked at the attitude both the police and the reporters had towards victims and perpetrators. Suicide, robbery, rape, murder. It didn’t matter who or what they were, everything was open to ridicule. Everything had a funny side. A telephone call to a victim’s relative would sound sincere but once the receiver was replaced it was open season on their loved one.
She jumped in front of a train? So what, happens every day. The shooting victim might live? Not worth it. Stabbed by a prostitute in a hotel room? Hey, ring up the hotel and find out how much it costs to hire one of those by the hour…
By the end of the first week I was immune. By the second week I was cracking jokes myself. When you’re immersed in death and violence and poverty and despair every day you tend to see the funny side in the darkest of circumstances. And very quickly, I assume, you forget that to those of us who rarely if ever come into contact with these things, the slightest phrase can seem not only callous but dishonorable.
Links for Tuesday:
Mike Rips Judge Who Freed Teen (New York Daily News)
Cops 22 Shots (New York Post)
11 Comments
November 8th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Don’t you almost have to do that, as an officer or journalist dealing with that gritty, harrowing subject matter? Sure, you hate to hear those things aired in public, where a backlash is waiting for almost everything said, but come on. Dealing with the depraved, anguish of a society every day, the only way to stay sane seems to try and make light of it.
November 8th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
I was working at a nationally syndicated radio news broadcast back in the 90′s when the David Koresh/Waco stuff was happening, and I’ll never forget the discovery that all the crude and tasteless jokes that make the rounds after any tragedy seemed to originate from the newsroom. It’s one of the things that convinced me never to seek a career in daily news journalism OR law enforcement. People are simply wired that way, I guess.
What I’d like to know if there is a correlation between this and the increasing coarseness in public discourse in general. We’ve all had to deal with a lot of tragedies, uncomfortable ideas, terrorism, nature, and everything else in the last five years — maybe that’s why people tend to insulate themselves in the cloak of their own beliefs and don’t try to open themselves up to real understanding of the issues . . .
November 8th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
You’re right Brendon. Perhaps I should have quoted more extensively from the article:
I can see exactly where both sides are coming from. Jess was right to point out how sorry she was for the dead boy’s mother. But the cop, with his daily work life submerged in other people’s misery, is also perfectly entitled to his so called “rah rah” attitude.
After all, if the police went around feeling sorry for everyone they wouldn’t be that effective nor would they turn up for work week in week out. For what it’s worth, I think the police do a great job in NY.
Michael, I have no idea what to make of your thoughts. I sometimes wonder about the vetarans who came back from WWII. How did they cope with readjusting after what they went through? And are we really that much coarser today than ‘in the good old days’ or are we just more open about our coarseness?
November 8th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Well expressed, and something I’ve thought about as well . . . It was not my intention to express anything that denigrates the sacrifices of WWI, WWII, or any other war, for that matter. And maybe we are just more “open” about our coarseness. If so, then I must ask the follow up: why are we now more open about our coarseness?
Speaking only about America’s reaction to such things, and only in my humble opinion, we were much more of a monolithic culture in the 40′s, and the horrors of war are easier to bear in such a culture. Everyone was in the boat together, so to speak, and those who opposed the war were not as represented in the cultural mainstream of society. Technology could be one reason these people have a voice now, and also why we all rush to judgement on such things.
Or perhaps the wounds of WWII are simply more deeply rooted and covered over, and those touched by the conflict of that time (which was, really everybody) bore a fracture that increased communication has brought to a shattering of the old monolith and the fragmentation of society. Or maybe that’s just a bunch of big words.
I tend to think people are the same throughout much of history, as regards to what drives us, but our culture and the volume, pitch and speed of information we have to work with is what changes. I was not trying to imply that people were less coarse back ‘in the good old days’, but I guess my point is that tragedy plus a more fractured, sound byte-soaked culture results in a coarsening of society, which results in an better-you-than-me defense mentality that spreads beyond the fringes of mentally stressful jobs like journalism and law enforcement.
And I actually don’t think that a monolithic culture is better (see Hitler, Adolf), but I do believe that cultural changes in recent years seem to have overtaken human capacity to deal with them in a equivocally constructive manner. As to the old Chinese curse, I think we do live in “interesting times”.
November 8th, 2005 at 4:39 pm
Blogorrhea NYC: Bodies for Sale (Souls Long Missing)
• Apparently, people auctions are the big charity event this season. Get your very own New York ad exec! And…
November 8th, 2005 at 4:59 pm
very interesting article. such a shame about the crime rate in new york
November 8th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
Wow, you’re totally right. If only our cops were more sensitive about justice for murderers.
Come on, wake up. People who have ugly sides to their jobs — cops, military service members, even (to a much lesser extent) garbagemen and politicians — have to harden themselves to the reality from which most of us are ordinarily shielded. Just be thankful that there are tough men and women out there to do the dirty work.
November 8th, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Criminal Records, I hope that was a bit of sarcasm there.
November 8th, 2005 at 8:17 pm
This reminds me of my friends who worked in homes for the mentally disabled. I was horrified by the names they called their clients! That is, until I realized they were the ones wiping the bottoms of people in need while I spent my days finnishing art school.
November 9th, 2005 at 8:23 am
As someone who is engaged to an NYPD officer, I understand that sometimes cops say things that can seem cold when taken out of context.
But the context is this: cops deal with people who are experiencing the worst day of their lives every day. What they are doing via humor is maintaining a professional distance from the horrible things that people do to themselves and each other.
Like any other profession, some police officers do a good job and some don’t. It’s easy to stand outside and criticize. Thank you for pointing out that until one actually does police work, one should temper one’s criticism with a generous measure of perspective.
November 9th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Well said, Thomas.