I'm so sick of the over-veneration of police officers.

[Shadow Wolf]

I hope next time someone is breaking into your house or threatening to kill you, that you will call a drug addict or rapist instead of those nasty cops.

I had a neighbor once, a drug dealer and use, and I would trust him way sooner than the cops.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I had a neighbor once, a drug dealer and use, and I would trust him way sooner than the cops.

In the old days you would call big Tony if somebody was messing wit da neighborhood.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When you get stories like this all the time, there seriously needs to an assessment of modern policing.

Police officers outran misconduct, felonies and became police chiefs

But as this thread demonstrates, people don't care. They see heroes with excuses instead of bullies and villains with a badge.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

I hope next time someone is breaking into your house or threatening to kill you, that you will call a drug addict or rapist instead of those nasty cops.

In a home break-in attempt, I would pick up and secure my pump-action shotgun first behind a closed and locked bedroom door then dial 911 if the situation permits. My "Big Tony" that I would call upon has a last name, Remington, not a name like Verducci or Rodriguez, and he is as black as the ace of spades. He is in my closet on guard all of the time.

I wish I had a big black German shepherd that looks as scary as the wolf in my avatar for security.

Most of the time police show up too late when somebody's life is threatened.

But yes, most cops are probably good and have good intentions. I would like juries in any court of law to only look at hard facts when any cop is involved in any case. The same is true when no cop is in the case as a party to it or a witness. I want perfect impartiality. Take the uniform and the badge off in a court of law, so to speak. Realize that cops are human and not perfect. Realize that cops are not above the law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the old days you would call big Tony if somebody was messing wit da neighborhood.

Yeah. And, truthfully, a playground of children I would a million times sooner trust Big or Fat Tony and feel more assured of the children's safety than leaving them with the cops. Mobsters will toss someone in a river with a special pair of shoes just for thinking of harming those kids. The police are known for sometimes shooting them, harassing them, one just body slammed a kid on the ground not too long ago, and of course sexual abuse would be a concern.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But yes, most cops are probably good and have good intentions. I would like juries in any court of law to only look at hard facts when any cop is involved in any case. Take the uniform and the badge off in a court of law, so to speak. Realize that cops are human and not perfect. Realize that cops are not above the law.

We really need to end internal investigations. It should never happen. And perhaps have these outside reviewers, who would be thoroughly educated and school in law, criminal justice, and policing, also serve as their jurors. Trial by their own peers just does not work except to make cover up efforts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We really need to end internal investigations. It should never happen. And perhaps have these outside reviewers, who would be thoroughly educated and school in law, criminal justice, and policing, also serve as their jurors. Trial by their own peers just does not work except to make cover up efforts.

It's a reason why I support body cams and the right to photograph/video police officers.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

Sounds like somebody got pulled over for speee..ding. Or was it for going too slow.



.

The man in my jury case, traffic court, in 1985 was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street: we did in fact convict him of that count. He had admitted to that. I've driven on the wrong side of the road several times sober. Streets and one-way signs can be hard to see at night and especially in foul weather. But we the 12 jurors saw the paper with the alphabet he wrote on it for the field sobriety test and it looked too good to convict him for a DUI. We had our doubts. He did confess to having at least one beer two hours before driving. He refused all BAC tests so there was no evidence there. His defense lawyer said that people are often scared of having needles put in them for BAC tests and not everybody has to pee right away. I don't know if they had the Breathalyzer back in 1985 in California.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

So yesterday it was a rant about anti-gun protesters. Today it's a rant about people who carry guns as part of their job

I thought there was gun ownership control for people with mental health issues in the USA

I have nothing against arming police. I don't like the fact that in Britain many cops there are not armed. The arming of GOOD police in the United States of America bothers me not. Corruption in law enforcement does bother me. Whenever juries are afraid to convict cops of crimes even with the most damning of hard evidence and witness testimony, it does bug me so. Judges are also reluctant to give cops stiff sentences even when they are convicted. Bias subverts true justice.

 

[shmogie]

That doesn't include tasing elderly nursing home residents. It doesn't include searching people for having brown skin (and finding nothing because there was nothing to find). It doesn't include pulling over a black woman and telling her "get out of the car ******." It doesn't include harassing a 20 year old male for having the same last name as his dad.

Though you didn't list any sources, two points. 1) there are always two sides to every story. That thug who got blown away in Ferguson was reported in the media as a saint, and the shooting as described by his pal which was reported was horrendous.

After a very thorough investigation it was proved forensically that the police officers report of the events was accurate, and this was corroborated by many witnesses. His friend was a flat out liar.

Out of the millions and millions of contacts the police have with people every year, complaints are relatively few.

Of course, there are mistakes made, and much worse simply bad officers, and I make no excuses for them. I have terminated a few, and arrested one.

Even with psychological testing and interviews, polygraph examinations, extensive background checks, Stress interviews, a very few can get through. After all, they are human.

 

[shmogie]

The man in my jury case, traffic court, in 1985 was stopped for driving on the wrong side of the street: we did in fact convict him of that count. He had admitted to that. I've driven on the wrong side of the road several times sober. Streets and one-way signs can be hard to see at night and especially in foul weather. But we the 12 jurors saw the paper with the alphabet he wrote on it for the field sobriety test and it looked too good to convict him for a DUI. We had our doubts. He did confess to having at least one beer two hours before driving. He refused all BAC tests so there was no evidence there. His defense lawyer said that people are often scared of having needles put in them for BAC tests and not everybody has to pee right away. I don't know if they had the Breathalyzer back in 1985 in California.

It was not in common use in California in 1985, I was in a police management position in Ca. in 1985.

At that time, if a subject failed an FST, they were offered a BAC test via blood draw as the gold standard for blood alcohol levels. So they had two bites at the apple. It would be explained that not taking the test would only leave the failed FST as evidence.

Being afraid of needles is one lousy excuse when you aren't drunk and you could clear yourself from a DUI.

In my experience, those who refused the BAC test were drunk driving a car.

Now, FST's are video recorded, back then they were not. Yet a traffic officer learns very early you win some and you lose some, and it isn't personal. Therefore his description of all the FST's performed is accurate.

 

[shmogie]

In the old days was just a simple gumball as I'm sure you're already aware.

If cops need that many lights on their cars then it's a good indicator that society overall is getting a real bad case of idiocy if they can't even see one light on a cruiser to avoid banging into it.

I'm not saying you're wrong with making your points but damn what happened to the days where all you metaphorically needed was 'Andy Griffith and Barney'?

I remember when kids used to run up to cops and had a bit of a chat. Making sure they're doing all right and the cop giving some reminders to stay out of trouble. I remember the local cop in my neighborhood always drove by when I was a kid just to have a chat. Kids don't forget that when they grow up and become better adults on a long run I think.

Those days are gone. It's now since been relegated to 'Max beyond thunderdome'. Urban style. 'Us and them'.

What happened was drugs and and a progressively more violent culture, coupled with I want to do what I want to do.

My home town in Ca, where I grew up was very safe when I was a kid in the 50's 60's. I remember how shocked we were when the first murder, occurred in 5 years. Now that town is the murder capital of the state for it's size, it occurs almost daily.

Drivers and Officers are killed every year because drivers don't yield to police cars responding to emergencies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Though you didn't list any sources

Most of what I've mentioned wasn't in the news. But some, such as officer Bisard of Indianapolis, or the cop who threatened to shoot the mayor are in the news of anyone wants to look it up. And come to think of it, the elderly man was also in Peru, Miller's Marry Manor, and that one too was in the news. They are human, but there are legions of them who are nothing more than a bully with a budge.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

It was not in common use in California in 1985, I was in a police management position in Ca. in 1985.

At that time, if a subject failed an FST, they were offered a BAC test via blood draw as the gold standard for blood alcohol levels. So they had two bites at the apple. It would be explained that not taking the test would only leave the failed FST as evidence.

Being afraid of needles is one lousy excuse when you aren't drunk and you could clear yourself from a DUI.

In my experience, those who refused the BAC test were drunk driving a car.

Now, FST's are video recorded, back then they were not. Yet a traffic officer learns very early you win some and you lose some, and it isn't personal. Therefore his description of all the FST's performed is accurate.

The guy, DUI suspect, wrote the alphabet legibly and well. Didn't miss a single letter of his ABC's. That's what convinced me as a juror to give him the benefit of the doubt as well as the 11 others. It's "passing-grade" FST evidence on paper the jury could see. No on-cop body cams back then. Smart move on the part of his defense attorney about the fear of needles. My father had been killed by a drunken motorist, punk age 24, in Vallejo, CA four years earlier but it didn't prejudice me in this case.
There was an old man on the jury who was a little skeptical during deliberation. The suspect was supposedly stopped by the cop at three in the morning and he supposedly had just come from a visit at his brother's house to be on his way home. The suspect supposedly had to report to a new job that morning and the old fart on the jury wondered why he was out so late having to get up for work that morning. Anyway, he reluctantly threw in a not-guilty verdict when it was done and over. He didn't want to dissent by going against the other 11 jurors.

The traffic court judge, a woman, harped on "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "the facts".

 

[Stevicus]

What happened was drugs and and a progressively more violent culture, coupled with I want to do what I want to do.

My home town in Ca, where I grew up was very safe when I was a kid in the 50's 60's. I remember how shocked we were when the first murder, occurred in 5 years. Now that town is the murder capital of the state for it's size, it occurs almost daily.

Drivers and Officers are killed every year because drivers don't yield to police cars responding to emergencies.

I think a lot of it was related to society unnecessarily trying to control and micromanage different areas of people's lives. Prohibition was a mistake, and it led to the rise of organized crime, which the politicians and police turned the blind eye to, which allowed it to flourish.

That kind of corruption may have contributed to a greater sense of cynicism which arose in the 50s and 60s, as well as growing dissatisfaction over civil rights and the government's paranoid delusions about "enemies" all over the world. This likely also led to an increased lack of faith in the system and those who work for it.

The motorized culture might have also contributed to public attitudes about police officers. Police and local governments also became larger, which necessitated greater revenue, which then turned cops from friendly arbiters walking a beat into obsessive, bureaucratic, pettifogging martinets, ready to write citations and issue fines for every conceivable petty violation out there.

There's a popular theme in popular culture which might often pit the "outlaw speeder" against the cop(s) trying to stop them. At best, the traffic violator is seen as a hero, while the cops are seen as killjoys who are only out to spoil everyone's fun - just because they can. Or it might be a case of fun-loving kids just wanting to party, while cops are seen as some kind of nemesis.

Another significant aspect of all of this is that, in America, we're taught almost literally from birth that we are the greatest country on Earth, far better than other countries because we're so "free" and have a commitment to human rights.

We're told that we can do anything we want, as long as we don't hurt or violate the rights of other people. Kids are told this over and over and over again, in school, in church, from their parents and other adults, from TV, from politicians. Even kids who can barely write their own name somehow manage to learn in school that they have rights (even if they don't learn anything else).

That's where the "I want to do what I want to do" comes from. People are conditioned and inculcated with this idea practically from birth. So, when cops come along and ostensibly violate these principles of America's Founding, it shatters the false image of a "free country" and is almost seen as a kind of treachery and betrayal on the part of the cops. Someone might say, "We were told that we live in a free country, yet these cops don't seem to understand it."

It's these kinds of inconsistencies and contradictions which lead to disrespect of the law and those who enforce it. To me, the onus is on the politicians, lawyers, and cops to fix this, so the system isn't seen as some kind of ad hoc mish-mash of frivolity, hypocrisy, and emotional chaos.

In other words, if police don't like being called "fascists," they need to stop acting like it. They need to do their job in accordance with the principles laid down by America's Founders, which cherish human rights, freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

An example of what I would consider a "good cop" would be the character of Odo from Star Trek: Deep Space 9. He would sometimes ignore the letter of the law if there were higher principles of justice and morality at stake. Cops might be able to achieve better results if they'd take their nose out of the rule book and take a long hard look at what surrounds them.

 

[shmogie]

I think a lot of it was related to society unnecessarily trying to control and micromanage different areas of people's lives. Prohibition was a mistake, and it led to the rise of organized crime, which the politicians and police turned the blind eye to, which allowed it to flourish.

That kind of corruption may have contributed to a greater sense of cynicism which arose in the 50s and 60s, as well as growing dissatisfaction over civil rights and the government's paranoid delusions about "enemies" all over the world. This likely also led to an increased lack of faith in the system and those who work for it.

The motorized culture might have also contributed to public attitudes about police officers. Police and local governments also became larger, which necessitated greater revenue, which then turned cops from friendly arbiters walking a beat into obsessive, bureaucratic, pettifogging martinets, ready to write citations and issue fines for every conceivable petty violation out there.

There's a popular theme in popular culture which might often pit the "outlaw speeder" against the cop(s) trying to stop them. At best, the traffic violator is seen as a hero, while the cops are seen as killjoys who are only out to spoil everyone's fun - just because they can. Or it might be a case of fun-loving kids just wanting to party, while cops are seen as some kind of nemesis.

Another significant aspect of all of this is that, in America, we're taught almost literally from birth that we are the greatest country on Earth, far better than other countries because we're so "free" and have a commitment to human rights.

We're told that we can do anything we want, as long as we don't hurt or violate the rights of other people. Kids are told this over and over and over again, in school, in church, from their parents and other adults, from TV, from politicians. Even kids who can barely write their own name somehow manage to learn in school that they have rights (even if they don't learn anything else).

That's where the "I want to do what I want to do" comes from. People are conditioned and inculcated with this idea practically from birth. So, when cops come along and ostensibly violate these principles of America's Founding, it shatters the false image of a "free country" and is almost seen as a kind of treachery and betrayal on the part of the cops. Someone might say, "We were told that we live in a free country, yet these cops don't seem to understand it."

It's these kinds of inconsistencies and contradictions which lead to disrespect of the law and those who enforce it. To me, the onus is on the politicians, lawyers, and cops to fix this, so the system isn't seen as some kind of ad hoc mish-mash of frivolity, hypocrisy, and emotional chaos.

In other words, if police don't like being called "fascists," they need to stop acting like it. They need to do their job in accordance with the principles laid down by America's Founders, which cherish human rights, freedom, liberty, and justice for all.

An example of what I would consider a "good cop" would be the character of Odo from Star Trek: Deep Space 9. He would sometimes ignore the letter of the law if there were higher principles of justice and morality at stake. Cops might be able to achieve better results if they'd take their nose out of the rule book and take a long hard look at what surrounds them.

When you condemn police officers generally, as you have, you are making accusations against me, and I take it just as personally as a Black person would if you said all Blacks are lazy.

Blanket statements like this is pure nonsense, decidedly false.

The politicians make the laws, the people elect the politicians. The police enforce the law, layers litigate the law.

So, ultimately, it is the responsibility of the people to correct the law if they don't like it.

Your pontificating about human rights, freedom, liberty and justice for all is a fine bit of rhetoric. However, every arrest made is because one or more people is denying someone else their rights, freedom, and liberty.

So, you want the police to ignore the letter of the law. For who? Whites, Blacks, left handed people, everybody?

Every time I have ignored "the letter of the law", and I have, numerous times, based upon my own judgement I created two problems.
1) I was not responsible for being a judge, that was not part of my remit when it comes to the law. What if my personal judgement was different than yours, since you imply you could do better. You would still complain, right?

2) Every time I opted for selective enforcement, the next guy I arrested for the same offense was being treated more harshly than the last guy. Fair?

Police Officers are infinitely more tuned into what is going on around them than you are.

Bottom line, you want to make a police officer a gumby to twist into any configuration you think is best.

This is what many demand, we want exemptions based upon our politics, race, gender, whatever.

Sadly, you are getting your wish in some cities. ANTIFA can virtually take control of downtown Portland when they choose, and the police loosely enforce perimeters, yet make no effort to stop the law breaking within the perimeter. You might remember the Conservative reporter who met the criteria of being great by the left, he was a homosexual, and a member of a minority race. However, he is a Conservative, hated by ANTIFA, and they beat the hell out of him and stole his camera, and THE POLICE JUST WATCHED, because they were under orders not to intercede.

This is what happens when policing becomes the victim of of political wars and radical governments. This is the ugly side of selective enforcement, and there is your true fascism.

Politicians have always put pressure on the Police for their advantage, but it is occurring in some jurisdictions in a very alarming fashion. The enforcement of the law is thrown out the window.

 

[shmogie]

The guy, DUI suspect, wrote the alphabet legibly and well. Didn't miss a single letter of his ABC's. That's what convinced me as a juror to give him the benefit of the doubt as well as the 11 others. It's "passing-grade" FST evidence on paper the jury could see. No on-cop body cams back then. Smart move on the part of his defense attorney about the fear of needles. My father had been killed by a drunken motorist, punk age 24, in Vallejo, CA four years earlier but it didn't prejudice me in this case.
There was an old man on the jury who was a little skeptical during deliberation. The suspect was supposedly stopped by the cop at three in the morning and he supposedly had just come from a visit at his brother's house to be on his way home. The suspect supposedly had to report to a new job that morning and the old fart on the jury wondered why he was out so late having to get up for work that morning. Anyway, he reluctantly threw in a not-guilty verdict when it was done and over. He didn't want to dissent by going against the other 11 jurors.

The traffic court judge, a woman, harped on "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "the facts".

Did the Officer not testify about other tests done? The alphabet is just one of at least the that could have been given.

Did the defense counsel offer written statements regarding the job from the company or from the brother?

The bars close at 2 AM, and for the next couple of hours the drunks are out driving around.

What driving behavior prompted him being stopped in the first place?

 

[shmogie]

Most of what I've mentioned wasn't in the news. But some, such as officer Bisard of Indianapolis, or the cop who threatened to shoot the mayor are in the news of anyone wants to look it up. And come to think of it, the elderly man was also in Peru, Miller's Marry Manor, and that one too was in the news. They are human, but there are legions of them who are nothing more than a bully with a budge.

Egions of them ? How many is that?

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course not all cops are bad, but pretending that merely wearing the uniform makes one a hero by default and that corruption, incompetence, misconduct, etc. either doesn't happen or is excusable is idiocy.

 

[Valjean]

For many, cops are symbols of order, safety and and predictability.

Symbols are simple; black and white. People love them. It's so much easier to revere a symbol than apply a principle or make a complicated judgement.