• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How It Is That Bad Cops Are The Majority Of Cops

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
@Revoltingest I acquired another cop book. This one being the agreement between the state of California and the police regarding benefits and bargaining.
The pigs here get $100-something (I just read it once and last night) per pay period to use towards physical fitness. They also get money for this and money for that, but that fitness thing I expect them all here ti be in tip top physical shape (many aren't).
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You missed my point.
You hid it from me.
Your solution was that they should be doing "more" of what they are already doing. How much is more? No matter how much is done, you can always say do more, so to only say something as vague as "more" says nothing unless you get into the details of how much you actually want done.
Your language is unclear.
Who should be doing more of what?

It seems that your posts are ignoring my advocacy
for various means to improve policing, & instead
arguing over things unclear to me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
@Revoltingest I acquired another cop book. This one being the agreement between the state of California and the police regarding benefits and bargaining.
The pigs here get $100-something (I just read it once and last night) per pay period to use towards physical fitness. They also get money for this and money for that, but that fitness thing I expect them all here ti be in tip top physical shape (many aren't).
Are they required to meet any fitness standards?
R.a36ff84b95c95f6843feeec689a5868e
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Are they required to meet any fitness standards?
R.a36ff84b95c95f6843feeec689a5868e
Yeah. If I could live with myself as a cop I could live with the cop pay and benefits. I can limp faster than some of them can run so I'm sure my physical woes shouldn't be an issue.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Yeah. If I could live with myself as a cop I could live with the cop pay and benefits. I can limp faster than some of them can run so I'm sure my physical woes shouldn't be an issue.
There must be physical standards for new recruits.
But after getting the job, you could be Joe Swanson
or Clancy Wiggum.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
..The things Revoltingest brings up are incidents that happen time and time again with nearly always the same issues and results. The police cover for eachother and internal investigations find no wrong doing even when courts do.
Please note what I'd said next...
If you find instances of one or two bad cops and say that we got dozens running around, then even 100 out of a million is a tenth of a percent. 99.9% of cops being good cops is pretty damn good imho. This also fits w/ my belief that people are good. If you on the other hand hold humanity in contempt then there's not much we can talk about.
--which bring up the idea that (paraphrasing Voltaire) perfection is the enemy of the good. Police malpractice is good? Yes, if it's a tenth of a percent of of all police conduct then it's good. It's not perfect, but you & I aren't perfect either yet we have the right to exist.
There is also the issue of warrior training which does instruct cops to be quick to shoot and especially kill. Even training manuals for traffic stops spend a lot if time discussing killing, encouraging it, amd says cops shouldn't feel bad doing it in the line of duty.
If you love humankind then we celebrate the fact that humans maintain order. To murder is wrong. To kill in self-defense or defense of others is good. This is how humanity can exist and if we forfeit control then we see our kind becoming extinct. If you hate humankind and want it to be extinct then there's nothing we can talk about.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Not all.

You'll notice I never said that.
--and that's why I had to ask, because you didn't say.
Instead, I'd proposed more stringent vetting of applicants,
much longer & better training, better supervision, higher
pay, & more accountability.
You have to understand that even w/ "more stringent vetting of applicants, much longer & better training, better supervision, higher pay, & more accountability" there will still be instances of police malpractice. Perfection is impossible. What we need to decide is what is our tolerance level. That's something that each of the thousands of jurisdictions is doing and frankly my bet is that they would welcome your input --especially the part about "higher pay".

The title of this thread is "How It Is That Bad Cops Are The Majority Of Cops". Reality is that most cops are good cops. Not only that, I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of cops are good cops. My take is that it's morally wrong to point to imperfection and say all are bad. You and I will sometimes do wrong things. imho that does not mean that you and I should not exist.
"
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
--and that's why I had to ask, because you didn't say.

You have to understand that even w/ "more stringent vetting of applicants, much longer & better training, better supervision, higher pay, & more accountability" there will still be instances of police malpractice. Perfection is impossible.
As I'm wont to say....
Perfection is the enemy of good.
What we need to decide is what is our tolerance level. That's something that each of the thousands of jurisdictions is doing and frankly my bet is that they would welcome your input --especially the part about "higher pay".
Higher pay would be made more affordable by
having fewer, but better cops. Also, there'd be
fewer payouts to victims of police misconduct.
The title of this thread is "How It Is That Bad Cops Are The Majority Of Cops". Reality is that most cops are good cops.
That's opinion, not reality.
Not only that, I'd argue that the overwhelming majority of cops are good cops. My take is that it's morally wrong to point to imperfection and say all are bad. You and I will sometimes do wrong things. imho that does not mean that you and I should not exist.
"
It appears that most cops aren't doing really bad
illegal things. But most cops will allow bad cops
to do really bad illegal things. This makes most
cops bad cops.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
As I'm wont to say....
Perfection is the enemy of good.
iirc that's from Voltaire --I love that quote.
Higher pay would be made more affordable by
having fewer, but better cops. Also, there'd be
fewer payouts to victims of police misconduct.
You're getting your wish, the trend in government is to downsize personnel levels and add in technology. U.S. federal payrolls peaked in the 1980's and have been falling since.
That's opinion, not reality.

It appears that most cops aren't doing really bad
illegal things. But most cops will allow bad cops
to do really bad illegal things. This makes most
cops bad cops.
--and things are not always how they appear. Let me know the next time you take a poll of cops where they all say "Sure if I saw my partner rob and steal from private citizens I'd totally go along." That's horsehockey.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Let me know the next time you take a poll of cops where they all say "Sure if I saw my partner rob and steal from private citizens I'd totally go along."
You believe that cops would admit this?
They might not even be aware that a view
they hold hypothetically would turn out
differently in a real world situation.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
... Let me know the next time you take a poll of cops where they all say "Sure if I saw my partner rob and steal from private citizens I'd totally go along." That's horsehockey.
You believe that cops would admit this?...
--and whether they'd admit it or not is not relevant. The point is that we got no evidence that most cops are willing to cover up wrong doing and making wild unsubstantiated claims gets us nowhere. We're working w/ what we know and not feeeelings.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
--and whether they'd admit it or not is not relevant.
Exactly!
The point is that we got no evidence that most cops are willing to cover up wrong doing and making wild unsubstantiated claims gets us nowhere.
There's evidence.
You just don't admit that it is.
I propose to you....
Watch 25 videos wherein a cop violates someone's
rights, & there are other cops on the scent.
Count up the number of cops who defend the
civilian's rights (good cops). And the number
who don't intervene (bad cops).
You'll find a bad/good ratio well over 50%.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We have another example of every
cop in a department being a bad cop.
Bad cop assaults a man.
Tortures him with foam irritant.
He & fellow cops thoroughly enjoy it.
His department & fellow cops cover up
the assault. But the news finds out.
Cops investigate themselves.
No jail time for any cops.

This video is interesting because of
the vitriol cops have for the victim,
& the unrestrained joy they have
for abusing him.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
This video shows the type of bad cop I often refer to,
ie, they allow other cops to commit illegal acts, but
do nothing to stop it. They even participate in
cover ups.
In this case a cooperative person in handcuffs is
assaulted by a cop, who threw him to the ground,
causing head & hand injuries. Not one of the many
other cops on the scene attempted to stop the
assault. Not one cop reported the assault. It only
came to light when the victim was hospitalized,
which triggered an investigation. The assailant
was put on paid vacation.
Such is very typical. It's extremely rare to see a
cop intervene when another cop goes rogue on
a civilian.
Should only criminals be allowed to break the law?

If you were allowed to break the law, you would have many advantages, over those who obey the law. For example, if guns were illegal to all law abiding citizens, the criminals would still get guns, but now they also would know that the law abiding will be an easy target, since they will obey the law and have no guns for self defense. The only people they will need to worry about, are those who will ignore the law, such as former navy seals or former police. These type of guys will have the same advantage as them, and they may even be better at the game of cops and robbers. They will not rob someone who plays by the same rules but will take advantage of their legal based advantage.

The cops and robbers both know this. If the cops are not allowed to act as dirty as the crooks, the crooks will know that and the cops will be more vulnerable. The criminals will know the length of a good cop's leash; they know the law. But if the cop was allowed off the leash; more options, the crook will not get as close when trying to do crime or create damage. For example, in many Democrat run cities, there cops must stand down for shoplifters. Is there now more or less shoplifting, once the leash was made known? This should be a teaching moment but the Left is denial.

What I would have done is make it known about the extra leash, and allow a few days of shoplifting, to make the crooks come out of the woodwork. On the third day, change the rules; release the leash, lock the doors and have a good beat down. Now with the rules ambiguous, the future crooks will not be sure what to do. We need more fakes and beat downs to keep the crooks off balance.

Like in sports, say you have a pickup game against another group of guys you just met. Say they start to cheat and even start to hurt the players on your team. Do you just take it and obey the law; game rules, or do you take your players aside and tell them to play by the same rules of the other team, to make it fair? I would play by their rules and hurt some of them even worse, until they ask everyone to play by fair rules. You cannot give crooks an inch or they will take a foot. If they cheat, you use their rules to take an inch out of their hide, then they will not push the issue; try to take the foot.

I believe in one set of rules for all, with the cheater setting the rules for all, since the cheater allow more options. This way it stays fair. Look at the crime statistic and compare the kills by the crooks versus the kills by police, The crooks are winning, big. This tells me the cops are not trying hard enough to make it fair, so the crooks can learn to play fair with safer rules.

If you use the rule of thumb of one set of rule for all, then it will be fair You first ask the crooks to play by fair rules. If they do not, then you use their rules against them, until they learn there is an easier way to be fair; lawful.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Should only criminals be allowed to break the law?
Rather than a simple yes or no answer,
I say no one should break the law.
Note also that cops who break the
law are criminals.
If you were allowed to break the law, you would have many advantages, over those who obey the law. For example, if guns were illegal to all law abiding citizens, the criminals would still get guns, but now they also would know that the law abiding will be an easy target, since they will obey the law and have no guns for self defense. The only people they will need to worry about, are those who will ignore the law, such as former navy seals or former police. These type of guys will have the same advantage as them, and they may even be better at the game of cops and robbers. They will not rob someone who plays by the same rules but will take advantage of their legal based advantage.

The cops and robbers both know this. If the cops are not allowed to act as dirty as the crooks, the crooks will know that and the cops will be more vulnerable. The criminals will know the length of a good cop's leash; they know the law. But if the cop was allowed off the leash; more options, the crook will not get as close when trying to do crime or create damage. For example, in many Democrat run cities, there cops must stand down for shoplifters. Is there now more or less shoplifting, once the leash was made known? This should be a teaching moment but the Left is denial.

What I would have done is make it known about the extra leash, and allow a few days of shoplifting, to make the crooks come out of the woodwork. On the third day, change the rules; release the leash, lock the doors and have a good beat down. Now with the rules ambiguous, the future crooks will not be sure what to do. We need more fakes and beat downs to keep the crooks off balance.

Like in sports, say you have a pickup game against another group of guys you just met. Say they start to cheat and even start to hurt the players on your team. Do you just take it and obey the law; game rules, or do you take your players aside and tell them to play by the same rules of the other team, to make it fair? I would play by their rules and hurt some of them even worse, until they ask everyone to play by fair rules. You cannot give crooks an inch or they will take a foot. If they cheat, you use their rules to take an inch out of their hide, then they will not push the issue; try to take the foot.

I believe in one set of rules for all, with the cheater setting the rules for all, since the cheater allow more options. This way it stays fair. Look at the crime statistic and compare the kills by the crooks versus the kills by police, The crooks are winning, big. This tells me the cops are not trying hard enough to make it fair, so the crooks can learn to play fair with safer rules.

If you use the rule of thumb of one set of rule for all, then it will be fair You first ask the crooks to play by fair rules. If they do not, then you use their rules against them, until they learn there is an easier way to be fair; lawful.
We have a fundamental disagreement about
whether cops being above the law is good
for society. I say it's not.
 

Kfox

Well-Known Member
You hid it from me.

Your language is unclear.
Who should be doing more of what?

It seems that your posts are ignoring my advocacy
for various means to improve policing, & instead
arguing over things unclear to me.
Again you are missing my point.
On post #46 you said there should be more stringent vetting of applicants, better training, supervision and accountability.

My response was that there is already stringent vetting of applicants, there is already training, supervision, and accountability. A solution of “more” doesn’t say anything because in theory you could have the best training, supervision, and accountability possible, and you could still say “more”. You need to be more specific; you need to explain HOW training, supervision, and accountability should be different than it is now.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Again you are missing my point.
On post #46 you said there should be more stringent vetting of applicants, better training, supervision and accountability.
I still favor such things.
My response was that there is already stringent vetting of applicants, there is already training, supervision, and accountability.
There is not.
Police departments are allowed to investigate themselves.
Cops can turn off body cameras.
Cops can file false reports.
A solution of “more” doesn’t say anything because in theory you could have the best training, supervision, and accountability possible, and you could still say “more”.
That is the slippery slope fallacy.
You need to be more specific; you need to explain HOW training, supervision, and accountability should be different than it is now.
I needn't explain anything in order to call
for reforms to curb incompetent, corrupt,
unaccountable policing in Ameristan.

BTW, I've offered many specifics before.
You just never read them.
 
Top