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

[shmogie]

History -- and experience.

Experience is anecdotal and has no relevance to millions upon millions of Police/citizen contacts across the nation.

History ? since when ? 1789 ?, 1865 ?, 1900 ?, 1930 ?, 1980 ? When ?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Once again, No one can prove that the profession "draws people prone to being bullies", or that the police are "prone to domestic violence". A police Officers is required to carry a firearm 24 hours per day. The on duty firearm MAY be provided by the department, bot the off duty one. So, if they already have these guns what effect will buying more will have on potential domestic violence?

I have reviewed psychological reports on literally hundreds of potential officers, few had bullying profiles.

They usually have profiles indicating a trait of clear views of right and wrong, and most don't have shy, reserved personalities, bot good in an Officer.

Does the job change them ? Yes. From my own experience. I was a trusting, very compassionate young man. Time and time again I was lied to and taken advantage of by drug addicts. Now, I would never believe one on anything, I would never again give them money "to feed their kids", I would never trust them , if they said there was stars in the sky I would have trouble believing them.

Police Officers have a high rate of suicide and alcoholism, this is a statistical fact. Cynicism about trying to solve problems that can never be solved, depression from seeing the dregs of humanity on a daily basis, the physical danger at times causes these.

Domestic violence, I don't know about any stats on that.

A police officer can't buy a gun without going through the background check, unless it's changed and I am not aware of it. Whether he wants to or not is immaterial. I was told by an ATF agent the reason why. If a citizen has a conceal or open carry license, they don't have to go through the background check.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[shmogie]

A police officer can't buy a gun without going through the background check, unless it's changed and I am not aware of it. Whether he wants to or not is immaterial. I was told by an ATF agent the reason why. If a citizen has a conceal or open carry license, they don't have to go through the background check.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Of course police Officers have a background check. Your point was that they have to because they are prone to domestic violence, which is false.

As far as I know, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a background check. Maybe the CWP holder doesn't have to. Why would that be though ? A Police Officer goes through a much, much more strenuous background investigation than a CWP holder, yet they have background checks to buy a gun.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Of course police Officers have a background check. Your point was that they have to because they are prone to domestic violence, which is false.

As far as I know, everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a background check. Maybe the CWP holder doesn't have to. Why would that be though ? A Police Officer goes through a much, much more strenuous background investigation than a CWP holder, yet they have background checks to buy a gun.

My thoughts are that if a police officer is being investigated for some sort of domestic violence I doubt he loses his job. Or, if he is found guilty of domestic violence I'm not sure that it would cause him to be fired. The point being he could still prove he is a police officer and buy a gun without background check. For an open or concealed carry person, the moment the police are called to their home for such an incident, I'm sure they would yank their license. My opinion.


Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Stevicus]

As a citizen, a citizen, as a concerned LEO I can voice opinions regarding the law, but the power to change it only exists with the politicians.

Review my career, look at every arrest I made, review my court testimony, interview every Officer that worked under my supervision, then call me the worst LEO that ever lived. Fine, your opinion is based upon your interpretation of facts and I can also use fact as a response.

Personal attack may sting but I can offer a defense based upon the reason for your criticism.

However, when you impugn every officer, in every state and territory with blanket statements how can I defend against that?

I'm not asking you to defend against it, nor is there any real reason to do so.

At some places I've worked, I've sat in meetings where the boss just chews out the entire group - even if there were a few among them for whom his criticism did not apply. They knew who they were, and they knew who was really getting chewed out - but they didn't take it personally or feel any need to defend themselves against criticisms that didn't apply to them individually. And they certainly felt no need to defend their sub-standard co-workers either.

Blanket statements like"they are all nazi's" cannot be proven, and is based in pure prejudice, and prejudice angers me.

I don't recall saying "they are all nazis." It's not the same thing as racial prejudice, since people don't choose their race.

Like all cops. and many people, I have opinions about lawyers, that effected my decision not to go to law school.

However, I assure you that if in the presence of a lawyer, I said "ALL lawyers are bottom dwelling muck suckers" I would have an angry lawyer on my hands. Perhaps not all would respond this way, if it was said as a joke or to a friend lawyer, but if I was serious, there would be anger, or just a stone wall.

I'm not so sure about that. I think lawyers are well aware of the reputation their profession has among the masses, and what's more, they understand the reasons why, too. Good lawyers know there are bad lawyers. Good journalists know there are bad journalists, etc. They don't try to play dumb or pretend that they've never heard of any bad apples in their profession.

By the way, on the subject of journalists, what do you think about blanket criticisms of "the media" that we so often hear? Do you think that's fair? Do you think it's comparable to criticisms about law enforcement?

We are adept at ignoring epithets, I have been called every name in the book and some you have never heard, and ignored it. Yet, when I am in a supposedly reasoned conversation this prejudice arises against me and all Officers, I do not like it.

But if I might make a suggestion, why not try to look at the overall context of the discussion and try to consider that there might be a basis for such criticism. Most of us have had experience with the police at one point or another, or we hear about the experiences of people we know, as well as reports in the press, blogs, etc.

Also, within the context of the OP, the subject of this thread is about the opposite situation, the over-veneration of police officers. It's equally prejudiced towards police officers, but at the other end of the spectrum, with the belief that the police can do no wrong and should be given endless thanks and praise for what they do.

And that's part of the problem here. Police officers apparently crave and expect this veneration and gushing praise from the masses to the point where even constructive criticism is dismissed as "prejudice" and "condemnation."

There are no such thing as victimless crimes. Prostitution is not victimless, prostitutes are exposed to many diseases, marriages are destroyed, prostitutes are beaten up and murdered. Drug abuse has all kinds of victims. I believe these should be legalized with strong control, but the facts are the facts.

People of all professions have gotten beaten up and murdered. Those are certainly crimes, but whatever they do for a living is a different matter. A drug user in his own home and involving no one else. His harm may be self-inflicted, but there need not be any other victims involved.

Or what about recent stories about kids getting arrested for running a lemonade stand in their neighborhood? This is the kind of stuff that makes one wonder if cops don't have better things to do.

I think about this when I see cops standing on the side of the road with their radar on, hoping to nab some speeders and raise revenue for the city or county. I think to myself: "I wonder if all the murders currently on the books have been solved. Have all the burglaries been solved and the stolen property returned to their owners? Have they found all the stolen cars currently out there?"

If not, then why are they utilizing limited police resources on this kind of duty? The cops are always saying "there aren't enough cops," but then if that's true, why do they waste time sitting by the road? Just to catch speeders, as if there's nothing else for them to do.

Every crime is against the people, the people are the victims.

Well, I'm one of the people, and it's no skin off me if a prostitute wants to sell her services to willing buyers - just as long as nobody is forced and everyone is doing so of their own free will. If someone wants to smoke a joint on his own time, why should I or anyone else feel victimized by that?

Or if someone has an "unclean license plate"? Honestly, if you can't produce some kind of victim in court, whether it's a body, an injury, or property damage/loss/theft, then what is the "crime"?

This also seems somewhat of a departure from your earlier position about it being the politicians' fault for the laws. While that may be true, now you're talking about it as if the people are victims if someone commits a crime - even if there is no actual person who can be produced as a victim. If it's the State that's the "victim," then we're talking about the politicians who make the laws, not "the people."

The Police have the power they exercise. If they abuse it, courts are strong in providing remedies to the victims of that abuse. However, those who believe a cop is abusing power should never resist. They rack up more violations, and they are going to jail, the easy way or the hard way, but they are going. That's just the way it is.

BTW, In the departments for which I worked, and the one I headed, I never saw a case of illegal arrest, or excessive force. I saw one case for the Sheriff's Department of the county. I was very familiar with what went on in three surrounding cities, and I knew of one case. This was over 25 years. There may have been cases kept secret and settled out of court, but I never knew about them, and it didn't happen where I worked.

In big cities the cops know exactly what the problems of the neighborhoods they patrol are. In the rundown and crime ridden area's, they complain about gangs fighting over the drugs market, poverty, lack of discipline and lack of real learning in the schools, oppression of the concerned and good people. Who listens to them? They are told "keep the lid on", with less and less of the resources they need. NO ONE who can is willing to address these issues head on.

Well, as you say, it rests with the politicians, but the politicians often squabble. There are sharp political divisions in this country which hobbles the government's ability to utilize its resources more effectively. I happen to think that there are solutions that could be tried.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Are you willing to pay the taxes required to bring back community policing of the type you speak of? If you and your fellow citizens were, the police would be all for it.

Every piece of equipment on a patrol car serves a purpose. All the lights? to make idiot citizens aware of the car when it is responding to an emergency.

Today, your fellow citizens make sport of sniping officers in their cars, if you can't see them, you can't shoot them. Decades ago I had the bulbs removed from new patrol cars that would come on when the door was opened.

The spotlight is obvious.

The cages keep some drug crazed scroat from choking you out while you drive. Ever tried to corral someone high on PCP? You wouldn't like it.

You do realize you just called citizens idiots? That's not helping.

 

[shmogie]

I'm not asking you to defend against it, nor is there any real reason to do so.

At some places I've worked, I've sat in meetings where the boss just chews out the entire group - even if there were a few among them for whom his criticism did not apply. They knew who they were, and they knew who was really getting chewed out - but they didn't take it personally or feel any need to defend themselves against criticisms that didn't apply to them individually. And they certainly felt no need to defend their sub-standard co-workers either.



I don't recall saying "they are all nazis." It's not the same thing as racial prejudice, since people don't choose their race.



I'm not so sure about that. I think lawyers are well aware of the reputation their profession has among the masses, and what's more, they understand the reasons why, too. Good lawyers know there are bad lawyers. Good journalists know there are bad journalists, etc. They don't try to play dumb or pretend that they've never heard of any bad apples in their profession.

By the way, on the subject of journalists, what do you think about blanket criticisms of "the media" that we so often hear? Do you think that's fair? Do you think it's comparable to criticisms about law enforcement?



But if I might make a suggestion, why not try to look at the overall context of the discussion and try to consider that there might be a basis for such criticism. Most of us have had experience with the police at one point or another, or we hear about the experiences of people we know, as well as reports in the press, blogs, etc.

Also, within the context of the OP, the subject of this thread is about the opposite situation, the over-veneration of police officers. It's equally prejudiced towards police officers, but at the other end of the spectrum, with the belief that the police can do no wrong and should be given endless thanks and praise for what they do.

And that's part of the problem here. Police officers apparently crave and expect this veneration and gushing praise from the masses to the point where even constructive criticism is dismissed as "prejudice" and "condemnation."



People of all professions have gotten beaten up and murdered. Those are certainly crimes, but whatever they do for a living is a different matter. A drug user in his own home and involving no one else. His harm may be self-inflicted, but there need not be any other victims involved.

Or what about recent stories about kids getting arrested for running a lemonade stand in their neighborhood? This is the kind of stuff that makes one wonder if cops don't have better things to do.

I think about this when I see cops standing on the side of the road with their radar on, hoping to nab some speeders and raise revenue for the city or county. I think to myself: "I wonder if all the murders currently on the books have been solved. Have all the burglaries been solved and the stolen property returned to their owners? Have they found all the stolen cars currently out there?"

If not, then why are they utilizing limited police resources on this kind of duty? The cops are always saying "there aren't enough cops," but then if that's true, why do they waste time sitting by the road? Just to catch speeders, as if there's nothing else for them to do.



Well, I'm one of the people, and it's no skin off me if a prostitute wants to sell her services to willing buyers - just as long as nobody is forced and everyone is doing so of their own free will. If someone wants to smoke a joint on his own time, why should I or anyone else feel victimized by that?

Or if someone has an "unclean license plate"? Honestly, if you can't produce some kind of victim in court, whether it's a body, an injury, or property damage/loss/theft, then what is the "crime"?

This also seems somewhat of a departure from your earlier position about it being the politicians' fault for the laws. While that may be true, now you're talking about it as if the people are victims if someone commits a crime - even if there is no actual person who can be produced as a victim. If it's the State that's the "victim," then we're talking about the politicians who make the laws, not "the people."



Well, as you say, it rests with the politicians, but the politicians often squabble. There are sharp political divisions in this country which hobbles the government's ability to utilize its resources more effectively. I happen to think that there are solutions that could be tried.

No Police Officer expects "veneration". There is a thing called the attitude test, if from the get go you are in my face, you have failed the attitude test, and don't expect much respect from me. Treat me like a human, then you will be treated with more respect than you give me.

You don't think traffic enforcement is important? 40,000 dead, a million injured a year. Police departments are mandated by state law to enforce traffic law in their jurisdictions, if they don't they get sanctioned.

In my experience, if someone has a brake light out, or your dirty license plate, I would stop them and tell them to get the light fixed, or to wipe the plate off, if they passed the attitude test. Once again, if they become screaming banshees, they get a ticket.

The Cops would never harass a kid selling lemonade, if they did it was because some health officer, or codes officer, or the city council forced them to do it.

I am not a good person to ask about news journalists, this is between you and me, but based on my experience with them over a quarter of a century, they are liars, at least as to what was reported about me over those years. I trust none of them. A prejudice ? Probably, but I wouldn't put it in their face.

When things are said generally about the Police, it cannot possibly be true. "Police Officers crave veneration". You have no way of knowing that, there are thousands upon thousands of them, so you have told a lie about members of my profession, and I will call you on it, because that includes me.

Say, in my opinion, or I think, then it is clear, you aren't trying to state an affirmative fact, just what you think is a fact.

So, be specific about the who and your contact with them, or give your opinion, but don't blanket every officer in every state with something you have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

[Stevicus]

No Police Officer expects "veneration". There is a thing called the attitude test, if from the get go you are in my face, you have failed the attitude test, and don't expect much respect from me. Treat me like a human, then you will be treated with more respect than you give me.

I'm not really talking about traffic stops, but about general statements made in public. Not in situations where they're "in your face," but more in public forums such as this one. No one is calling you out personally here. The public should feel perfectly free to criticize the police. Not only is it their Constitutional right, but it's also the responsibility of a vigilant citizenry to continually watch their government with a critical eye.

You don't think traffic enforcement is important? 40,000 dead, a million injured a year. Police departments are mandated by state law to enforce traffic law in their jurisdictions, if they don't they get sanctioned.

Sure, it's important, but there are other laws which are important, too. Who is to say where the priorities should be, and who should say which laws are more important than others?

Don't get me wrong. I know there are crazy drivers out there who need to be stopped, but a lot of motorists are good citizens who will report that. I even did that myself, as I found myself behind a guy driving an RV who appeared drunk. He was driving too close to the side of the road and kept banging into lightposts, causing damage. I later found out that I wasn't the only one reporting the guy, and he ended up crashing a few miles down after I spotted him. That guy was obviously dangerous, but fortunately nobody was hurt. But it wasn't cops sitting on the side of the road with radar guns who caught him.

In my experience, if someone has a brake light out, or your dirty license plate, I would stop them and tell them to get the light fixed, or to wipe the plate off, if they passed the attitude test. Once again, if they become screaming banshees, they get a ticket.

One thing that seems to keep everyone honest nowadays is that surveillance cameras and cellphone cameras are everywhere these days. Dash cams, body cams - there are eyes all over. I note that more police agencies are using them, although I've heard that there are some police who aren't too happy with the idea.

The Cops would never harass a kid selling lemonade, if they did it was because some health officer, or codes officer, or the city council forced them to do it.

Well, it has happened in a few cases which were reported. I think there was a certain measure of public outrage, and I've heard that some cities have even changed their laws to allow for kids setting up lemonade stands.

I am not a good person to ask about news journalists, this is between you and me, but based on my experience with them over a quarter of a century, they are liars, at least as to what was reported about me over those years. I trust none of them. A prejudice ? Probably, but I wouldn't put it in their face.

I wouldn't necessarily be "in their face" either.

When things are said generally about the Police, it cannot possibly be true. "Police Officers crave veneration". You have no way of knowing that, there are thousands upon thousands of them, so you have told a lie about members of my profession, and I will call you on it, because that includes me.

Well, what else can it be? Seriously, I was just offering some constructive criticism, and you say that it's "prejudice" and "condemnation" of police officers. You can't even take the smallest criticism without reacting like I've committed some sort of blasphemy. I've heard people say much worse things about the police than I have said here. But I'm sure you've heard it all before.

Say, in my opinion, or I think, then it is clear, you aren't trying to state an affirmative fact, just what you think is a fact.

Actually I did include the qualifying adverb "apparently" in that statement. "Apparently" implies "it appears to me," which is another way of saying "I think" or "in my opinion."

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm wondering if mandatory quotas are still being levied on police officers?

 

[shmogie]

You do realize you just called citizens idiots? That's not helping.

Because of the absence of the word some? mea culpa

 

[shmogie]

I'm wondering if mandatory quotas are still being levied on police officers?

As far as I know, there were never quota's as in, say, a requires 25 tickets a day, at least. Certainly I know nothing about most departments.

In my experience, citations were used as a performance evaluation tool. Police managers know their jurisdictions well. If the number of citations consistently seem low over time, the traffic Officer will be spoken to.

Quota? You decide.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again, No one can prove that the profession "draws people prone to being bullies", or that the police are "prone to domestic violence". A police Officers is required to carry a firearm 24 hours per day. The on duty firearm MAY be provided by the department, bot the off duty one. So, if they already have these guns what effect will buying more will have on potential domestic violence?

I have reviewed psychological reports on literally hundreds of potential officers, few had bullying profiles.

They usually have profiles indicating a trait of clear views of right and wrong, and most don't have shy, reserved personalities, bot good in an Officer.

Does the job change them ? Yes. From my own experience. I was a trusting, very compassionate young man. Time and time again I was lied to and taken advantage of by drug addicts. Now, I would never believe one on anything, I would never again give them money "to feed their kids", I would never trust them , if they said there was stars in the sky I would have trouble believing them.

Police Officers have a high rate of suicide and alcoholism, this is a statistical fact. Cynicism about trying to solve problems that can never be solved, depression from seeing the dregs of humanity on a daily basis, the physical danger at times causes these.

Domestic violence, I don't know about any stats on that.

What are the statistics for suicidal alcoholics and driving under the influence? I would think the former would promote the latter or inhibit the avoidance of the latter.

Do you think domestic violence would be higher or lower in a population you have identified as having higher rates of alcoholism and suicide?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as I know, there were never quota's as in, say, a requires 25 tickets a day, at least. Certainly I know nothing about most departments.

In my experience, citations were used as a performance evaluation tool. Police managers know their jurisdictions well. If the number of citations consistently seem low over time, the traffic Officer will be spoken to.

Quota? You decide.

Wouldn't a system like that promote a higher level of infractions in a jurisdiction and inhibit innovation? If performance is based on some unwritten quata, it is in the interest of those benefiting from higher volumes of infractions to maintain the market.

Conversely, any officer that developed any technique that reduced incidence of infractions might be penalized for it.

 

[shmogie]

Wouldn't a system like that promote a higher level of infractions in a jurisdiction and inhibit innovation? If performance is based on some unwritten quata, it is in the interest of those benefiting from higher volumes of infractions to maintain the market.

Conversely, any officer that developed any technique that reduced incidence of infractions might be penalized for it.

It is ONE tool of performance measuring. One factor among a number used.

Innovation is always sought regarding the ultimate goal, of safer streets, reduced accidents, reduced deaths.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is ONE tool of performance measuring. One factor among a number used.

Innovation is always sought regarding the ultimate goal, of safer streets, reduced accidents, reduced deaths.

It certainly does not offer any incentive to see it improve if high numbers of citations lead to higher performance ratings. My question is less about the people involved and more about the system. Though a dynamic exists.

 

[shmogie]

It certainly does not offer any incentive to see it improve if high numbers of citations lead to higher performance ratings. My question is less about the people involved and more about the system. Though a dynamic exists.

Citation numbers, up or down, do not establish a performance evaluation. They are a facet of a multifaceted process.

If an Officers cites seemed low, yet it was established that she had numerous letters of appreciation from citizens for outstanding service in other areas, and I found that she was spending her time making contacts, asking about problems, was involved in productive patrol with field interrogations, exercised focused observation on a high level as reflected by radio logs, I wouldn't care in the slightest about the citations.

 

[Shaul]

So long as the police must recruit from among fallible humans there will be problems. But between the alternatives of having police and none at all the former is far, far more preferable to the latter.

Negativity won’t help. Let’s work together to make our police the best possible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Citation numbers, up or down, do not establish a performance evaluation. They are a facet of a multifaceted process.

If an Officers cites seemed low, yet it was established that she had numerous letters of appreciation from citizens for outstanding service in other areas, and I found that she was spending her time making contacts, asking about problems, was involved in productive patrol with field interrogations, exercised focused observation on a high level as reflected by radio logs, I wouldn't care in the slightest about the citations.

I am just thinking in larger terms about unintended consequences. The application of analysis techniques have discovered very unexpected results in a number of diverse areas like real estate and drug dealers, for instance. It would interesting to evaluate citations, infractions, and auto accidents in an area to see if they match the observations of the experienced officers or if there would be some surprises and learning. Analysis has revealed unusual and unexpected pressure driving outcomes that were not perceived as important.