Approval of Injustice

Please believe me when I say I am not anti-police. I think law enforcement is good. There are many excellent law enforcement officers who excute their job with fairness, care and compassion. However, as always, there are those few who ruin it for everybody. In this case, those few have served to ruin the reputation of law enforcement.

Here is the story that has prompted this post (again, this story comes from our friend Bob referenced in my first post about police injustices):
A man is being put under arrest by two policemen. They beat the crap out of him - so much so that he is bleeding from his ears. There is a sheriff's helicopter that was also pursuing this man and is hovering above the scene. The officers in the helicopter see what is happening, but they do not want to have to be responsible for what they are seeing. They radio in to the policemen, "You've got this," and leave the scene. The paperwork for the arrest and report is fudged, and the officers get away with the abuse.

I won't even ask you if this is an injustice because I know it is. And this post is not even really about the  police, but this story illustrates my concern. My concern is that we sit around and do nothing about injustice.

Case in point: Our friend Bob had no negative reaction to this story until he was badgered by a car full of girls about it. According to him, the best part of the story was the sheriff's helicopter flying away and turning a blind eye to what was going on. He actually thought the response of the sheriff's helicopter was funny.

Our conversation continued.
Bob: The guy was a scum bag.
Me: Really? What was he being arrested for?
Bob: I don't know.
Me: Unless he had raped a child, that's not okay... and probably not even then.
Bob: He was going to go to jail anyway though.

Great. Let's beat the crap out of everyone who gets arrested or is going to jail, whatever the reason. Furthermore, let's write up false reports about what happened. Better yet, let's turn a blind eye to what's going on. Oh, and one more thing. Let's defend the people who commit these injustices by focusing on how corrupt the criminal is. I mean, when you consider how awfully horrible the criminal is, it really doesn't matter that the police beat the crap out of him, right?

Bob then got defensive.
Bob: Why are you guys getting mad at me? I wasn't there. I didn't do it.
Me: Because you're laughing at it. You're condoning it. It's like in high school when someone is making fun of another person. It doesn't matter if you're actually teasing them or not. If you're just standing there laughing and doing nothing to help them, you're just as guilty.

My friends, if we are aware of injustice, are in a position to do something about it, but do nothing, we are just as guilty. Do I expect our friend Bob to reform the police department himself? Do I expect him to root out corruption by himself? No and no. That's an impossible task to do by himself. But Bob can do something.

For instance, when his police friends tell him stories like that, or when he sees stuff like that happen, he can simply open his mouth and say, "That's not okay." That's not too difficult, right? Well, it is if your heart isn't seeking justice. I'm not making any statements about Bob's heart, but I am saying that our reaction to injustice is an important indicator of the condition of our heart.

And that, my friends, is what I want to leave you with. When you see injustices happening, do not sit idly by. Do not condone it with your actions and words. Furthermore, do not allow your heart to become so calloused that you do not even recognize injustice when you see it. Don't be that highschooler who just laughs with everyone else because he is too afraid to stand up to someone.

*** EDIT ***
To get people talking and aware, I decided to post this on facebook. A friend of mine commented on it. He had this to say:

so cops ruthlessly beat a totally compliant criminal in broad daylight, and then covered it all up. and the person who told this story must have been riding in the chopper to hear what the cops said.
was the criminal was resisting arrest, threatening, or attacking cops? if so, those cops would have every right to use plenty of force. that's what we pay them for.
and it works both ways; the criminals that resist arrest ruin it for the rest, and make it necessary for cops to carry guns tazos and batons. not to mention, cops can't just fudge a report, throw you in jail, and go get bearpaws. reports are only preliminary, so that you can fight them in court. i've done it.

Ouch. A little miffed, but also understanding of his constructive criticism, I responded with this:

Jon, you're right. The person telling the story was not in the helicopter. He was told the story by his friends who are cops. So yes, there are more than likely details missing. I will grant you that.

And I will not argue with you about the reasoning behind officers carrying weapons. I fully support officers using weapons when being attacked and threatened. I also support officers using force if a person is resisting arrest.

Perhaps I should have chosen a different story (with more details) to illustrate my concern. Point taken.

As I said before, my concern is not the police (although their actions in the story, as told to me, do concern me - but, as you so kindly pointed out, I should probably know all of the facts before using this story as a rallying point). My concern is injustices (whatever form they may take) that are ignored.

Here are a few questions I didn't raise in my response to him, but I'd like for any readers out there to help me answer:

1. Can you properly defend yourself against an attacker without beating the crap out of them? Does defending yourself necessitate beating the crap out of someone?
2. The police did not use a taser, nightstick or gun. They used their own bodies to beat this man. Is a police officer allowed to start beating on someone when he is threatened or is he supposed to wait until a move has been made to physically attack him?
3. Why were there two police officers beating this man? I understand it taking two officers to subdue the man. I even understand one of the officers stepping in to defend the other one. However, from the way in which the story was told, neither of these seem to be the case. Bob did not indicate that the police were trying to subdue an irate and violent criminal. The use of physical force by both officers seems a little extreme and very unnecessary.
4. Finally, if the police had done nothing wrong, what would have been the point in them fudging the paper work? I understand that they are preliminary and that the "criminal" has the right to fight them in court. But he shouldn't have to - that's the point. He shouldn't have to waste time and money sitting in court, fighting a falsified report. We may pay policemen to protect us from legitimate crimes and criminals, but we do not pay them to falsify reports. We pay them because we believe them to be trustworthy and honest in the work they do.

Any responses?