The Police And Us
I want to start off by saying that I am slightly prejudiced on the side of the cops. My favorite cousin's son is in law enforcement. When I was in the retail business, many of my customers were police officers. In my dealings with the police, I have found all kinds of people. I've had a rude cop give me a ticket as if he was talking to a drug dealer, I've had another cop give me a speeding ticket almost apologetically saying how he realized I was trying to just pass a slower vehicle. I have, however, noticed a strong dislike of police prevalent in the Gulch. Not for a single event or even a series of events, but just police in general. Those who are on the con side seem to think that police are getting too militaristic. That they overstep their bounds on a regular basis and hassle regular citizens inordinately. I'd like to know the general feeling in the Gulch. Are there experiences that reflect on the general actions of the police, or are there just individual incidents? What does the Gulch feel is the general trend? Should we fear the police more than the criminals? I personally think that imposing bad generalities on the police is beginning to become a prejudice opposite of mine. What do you think?
So the 183 dead this year do not represent all that have been shot nor do they represent all that have been shot at. The supposed number of SWAT deployments for non-violent warrant service in no-knock, early morning raids is estimated at something like 80,000/yr, though no one really knows. No one tracks the number of beatings, trippings to the pavement, false escalations to 'Obstruction' or 'Resistings' filed, planting of evidence, lies on warrant applications, so called arrests in error dismissed the next business day by the DA, etc., etc. Then tack on the astounding dollar amounts generated from revenue generation traffic stops and infractions and asset seizures with no criminal charges filed.
I totally support and will celebrate any LEO that sees his job as protecting my natural individual rights and understands Peelian Principles of Policing and will stand up and refuse to obey un-Constitutional orders. I've even donated to the legal funds of a few that have been railroaded out of their Dept's for whistle-blowing or refusing to support a bad cop. But until all the 'good cops' start weeding their own gardens and those of their political bosses, I'll have to count them as 'bad cops'.
As to guns; the pistols currently carried by most police carry large capacity clips. They need them, because in order to hit anything with them you need to be an expert marksman, which very few police are. If the target is moving and beyond ten feet, luck plays more of a part than skill.
I say just about every interaction because I volunteer at my schools athletic events where I have to hang out with a PO for 4 hours and we get along just fine.
I've been pulled over at least 2 dozen times (speeding or cycle out of lane) and only have received 2 tickets, so for the most part they have been kind. But I do not trust a single one of them. I have seen them lie in court, modify their report to satisfy a prosecutor, and seen them arrest an innocent person in the most offensive manner. As they talk to me like I am a criminal, I talk to them as they are a criminal. I am sure they are not all like that but since I do not know which ones are honest or not, I treat them all as if they are dishonest, and will do anything to get a conviction.
thats my experience.
But hey, it's a great day to get outdoors, and knott deal with a cop.
style, but together with you Herb, I'm still one of 'em!
Add (different) multiple experiences of cops perjuring themselves on signed charging documents. So, no, I don't give cops the benefit of the doubt.
Add judges who are willing to ignore the lies, misrepresentations, and other dissembling, and I don't give judges the benefit of the doubt either.
Every police officer is under scrutiny today and every action is questioned. Like every other profession there are always a few that don’t meet the standards and should find a new line of work. But, you also have to look at who they have to deal with every day. They are not generally dealing with the most upstanding citizens. There is very little respect for authority anymore.
Another person comment on how many Americans had been killed by police officers already this year. There was no mention of the circumstances. There was no mention of how many times police would have been justified in killing someone but showed restraint and didn’t. Until you have worn the badge, carried a gun and been involved in a like and death situation you can’t really judge their actions. I’m surprised that there aren’t more shooting with the attitude of some of the people that they have to deal with.
As far as the “militarization” of the police. Have you looked at what the criminals, especially gangs and drug dealers, are carrying? A Barney Fife wouldn’t make it in today’s world. I think that the police showing up with a massive show of force is safer than one cop with a six-gun.
I don’t think there is a police officer out there who leave his house in the morning planning to see how many people he can piss off or if he can shoot somebody and get away with it. They just want to go to work and survive their shift.
(1) Every citizen is free to perform any act which does not hamper the equal freedom of another citizen.
(2) No law shall forbid the performance of any act, which does not damage the physical or economic welfare of another person.
(3) No act shall constitute a violation of a law valid under this provision unless there is such damage or immediate present danger resulting from that act.
Some preemptive caution is necessary.
Heinlein's position is mostly harmless.
Now that those communities are getting those services they respond by using it as a political position, claiming that their communities are unfairly being targeted.
You can't get more of an non-issue to run circles around than this.
I was taught as a child that police are our friends and protectors, and indeed I have had only a couple of negative encounters.
It is a human attribute that when given power over others, a certain attitude emerges that justifies abuse of that power, whether unequal administration of justice, playing favorites, covering up, exploiting the helpless, and overstepping boundaries. The police are, after all, internal agents of force where the military are external. They need to be a collective function to exert control over individuals or smaller groups.
As with everything that involves living things, escalation and complexification happen. Our freedoms become limited, rules and laws become too numerous and restrictive, people get more rebellious and aggressive, police get more defensive, attitudes harden.
I would venture to predict the same course evolving if all we freedom lovers built our own Gulch, our own closed community. First we'd appoint or hire guardians, administrators of law and order (the "oath" or social contract), and then watch individual personalities grow into their functions and soon exceed them. Heck, it happens right here in this virtual Gulch.
Policemen used to be viewed as heroes. That and firemen were what boys wanted to grow up to be, doing good in the community. Then there is the small number who just wanted a license to be bullies. A policeman I knew (relative of a friend) would brag about the thrill of breaking down doors in SWAT raids.
Living bodies need defenses, an immune system. When they turn against their host, lupus and other diseases set in. The ethical principle of the Golden Rule, reformulated as Galt's Oath, from the simple meme of "do no harm", needs periodic refreshing, if only for mutual benefit. Then we wouldn't have to lose good men's lives and reputations in endless social conflict.
Yes, I am the incurable idealist, and proud of it. Policemen at heart are little boys who want to do good; they need love, too.
As to the military, with all the stupid things the administration expects soldiers sailors, and marines to do, I think they lose track of the real purpose for their existence. In the defense of their country they are to kill people and break things. Sounds harsh and simplistic, but when you strip away all the nonsense, that's all that remains.
remembering it now.
Looking back, the best ones I worked with were the older, seasoned guys with an experiential perspective on what they job was.... We did some good things and we did have some laughs.
a statistic. Some of the officers seem to be avoiding the high crime areas or what waiting a long time before responding. Its tough to head to a domestic violence call when gun fire is likely to be involved. Yes, there are bad players in any profession, but if you anyone with respect they too will treat you with respect. And if not, there are avenues to address this behavior, I let the other person break the Golden Rule and whenever possible I just walk away.
I think the places where the police are the most corrupt are also the places where the communities themselves are the most corrupt, or the communities which have few or very low standards of ethical behavior. It's a snowball effect either way.
Police as an institution has become an entitled group that can do no wrong. Police do not give each other speeding tickets, generally speaking. The word of a police officer is stronger in court than ours. Many departments have become essentially another tax agency. SWAT teams using military vehicles and equipment are inappropriate and unnecessary.
On the other hand they have a tough job at times, and I am inclined to give them the benefit of doubt in shootings. There are bad shootings, but what is the percentage? I think other institutional behaviors are a bigger part of our freedom problem than the few shootings in tough situations, or by bad individuals.
The institutional behaviors are a problem. They are not in line with the intentions of there roles.
The police in my town are very polite and helpful...to the people in my town. If you drive through from another state or are pulled over and from another town, you had better not have been speeding. If you are from the town, you'll get a warning. Is this ok? I don't think so. Do they exhibit this behavior as individuals or institutionally? C'mon. However, I do like the small town, helpful part.
There are good cops. I kind of pity them. And, frankly, other than power-trip stuff they are all in it for the retirement. Few are in it to help society (not that I blame them). As a result, we get what we've got.
I think our police are way too militaristic, but that doesn't put me on the con side or make me prejudiced against police officers. Many police officers, esp retirement-age officers who did the job prior to the SWAT-team militarization and war on people who use drugs, object to way we do policing today.
My thought for solving the problem is to have few laws and only laws that are almost universally accepted. That way the police have an army of citizens who are completely on their side. Then the police should mostly patrol the neighborhoods they know and do so on bike or foot when possible so they frequently interact with the people they serve. I think we should reduce prison sentences and use the savings to hire more police officers, since criminals are more likely to respond to the immediate risk of getting caught rather than how many years they'll be jailed if they do get caught.
probably, to a man,if he were to start deciding
which laws he would and would not enforce.
This is the natural course of the way the law falls apart. There are all these rules on the book that no one enforces. Police and prosecutors know they're bogus things that most of the population does, so they look the otherway. Then when someone powerful wants to use the power of the state against a citizen or group, they get the authorities to enforce the law. They appear to have the rule of law behind them, but it's just a veil covering rule by people.
There are so many contradictory laws on the books that it's just as bad as having no laws. Any law running to more than 25 pages is probably got so many hidden things in it that it could be used to save, condemn, or do nothing at all. Did you ever see the room where Judge Judy makes her phone calls? Row after row, shelf after shelf of law books and I'd be willing to bet that they don't represent 10% of all the laws there are.
What we need is to have some kind of Constitutional amendment explicitly declaring that the purpose(s) (the only) purpose(s) of government(whetherFederal,State,or local)is/are: to protect persons from force and/or violence (in-
cluding fraud), and to punish same, and no law
not in pursuance of this goal shall be Constitu-
tional or remain on the books.
Good luck on accomplishing that. I don't ex-
pect to see it in my lifetime.
In the meantime, perhaps we can agitate,
with some success, for abolition of departments
of government, on a department-by-department
basis.--And maybe it could be done within
States and localities, too.
--Particularly the abolition of public education.
Perhaps, after enough conversion of the ideas
of the populace, that could be begun state by
state.
You fit in where you are. No one should criticize you for doing a legitimate job. Especially an essential one.
I haven't gone since December because of
the flat. But it was a cop from the precinct in
my neighborhood who was kind enough to repair it for me. (Unfortunately, it went flat again). I was
mugged a few weekends ago, and the punks
took my seabag and the groceries in it. And a
detective from the station came to my house
with a small backpack and some good food in
it.
I don't think the cops are always right. (I don't
think they were right in that choking case in New
York). I don't think they are always wrong, eith-
er. One should look at the facts of the case.
At least they are one of the few legitimate
functions of government.
But I suppose I am getting to have a sort of
personal bias lately. In fact, the station has be-
come a sort of hangout for me. I don't have to
buy something as an excuse to hang around.
I grew up, respecting police officers, though I had my share of run-ins with them...none of them ever landed me in a jail cell. I even worked for the local sheriff's department, installing and repairing their radios for 5 years. I also worked closely with jail inmates and learned a lot about why they were where they were, though not exactly in the same light as they saw it.
I have 2 brothers and a son who've done jail time. All three of them deserved it. I also know an innocent man who was taken down by the police, but his fault was that he was "ambulance chasing" with his scanner and got a little too close to the bust of a big drug dealer. He was immediately released (I testified as to his innocence to a local investigator), but it was a learning lesson for him.
Of all the "bad" incidents I've seen, the suspect was generally involved in doing something either sneaky or wrong, when the police took action. Yes, there are those cases of police overstepping their bounds, but they are rare.
I'm not saying that we should turn a blind eye, but we shouldn't jump on the bandwagon every time someone claims police brutality. Perhaps we should step back and take in the entire scenario, before passing judgment on those boys in blue.
I'm friends with a couple cops who are good guys. One just retired. I also know a few of the younger ones who are real douchebags.
and great memory for negative interactions, it seems
to me. . I have been helped and irritated by police
individuals, but never heavily pissed. . other government
officials, however, have left enormous negative wakes
behind their actions. . for "bureaucrats," they are
quite fine -- especially since they are walking targets
with personal conflicts over the life-and-death nature
of their jobs! -- j
.
and, as such, must "control themselves" according to
complex rules of engagement -- not easy! -- j
.
This is how we think of it today, but I say it's the wrong approach.
Military rules of engagement are for dealing with the enemy. Ordinary policing should be completely different. The rule of law should control them. If police think of themselves as a military, the people they serve become the enemy.
how the police get out of control so easily. . they must
stay on the leash of the rule of law, as you say, or
there can be awful consequences....... -- j
p.s. the "rules of engagement" for the military really
do not lend themselves to "nation-building," do they?
.
With that said I do dislike the ever increasing militarization of the profession and I hate the very essence of their traffic duties. I understand the need for traffic control; however, I have had multiple experiences with Police writing tickets as nothing more than revenue generating exercises for the community. Here in Texas I was once pulled over for a seatbelt violation by a pair of Officers who both had their seatbelts buckled behind them. When I fought it in court, I won but was still required to pay court cost which amounted to only $10.00 less than the original ticket. Of course I had to take a day off work to fight the ticket.
know whether that is the case in Virginia or not. But
maybe if you agitate enough, you can get the law
changed. Of course, maybe you have a job and
don't believe you have enough time.
Which basically means that an Officer can write a ticket for anything and you will end up paying at least $99.00.
By and large the police actually do a public service, unlike our political public servants who only serve themselves.
I also am horrified by the treatment and the rush to judgement of the administration in many recent cases that are local events not federal cases. Police are innocent until proven guilty just like other US citizens and should be afforded an unbiased support for their work.
But I will say this...probably because I am a normal citizen and never lived in a city, never was into drugs, I never had the occasion to witness the kind of stuff we see on lamestream, never seen any really bad behavior...just stupid behavior on occasion.
Since I have really started investigating and writing, every policeman I meet, I thank them for their service and explain the cultural situation we are in and ask them, if TSHF to please stick with the community and do not follow government nor their union leaders...most of them appreciate that.
Whether they will or not, remains to be seen...guess we must be careful and hope for the best.
Who will guard the guards themselves?
From the Satires of Juvenal, the 1st/2nd century Roman satirist.
(Satire 6.346–348):
audio quid ueteres olim moneatis amici,
"pone seram, cohibe." sed quis custodiet ipsos—
custodes? cauta est et ab illis incipit uxor.
----------
I hear always the admonishment of my friends:
"Bolt her in, constrain her!" But who will guard
the guardians? The wife plans ahead and begins with them.
But from the Oxoniensis manuscript discovered by E.O. Winstedt, an undergraduate student at Oxford, in 1899:
(O 29–33):
… noui
consilia et ueteres quaecumque monetis amici,
"pone seram, cohibes." sed quis custodiet ipsos—
custodes? qui nunc lasciuae furta puellae
hac mercede silent crimen commune tacetur.
----------
… I know
the plan that my friends always advise me to adopt:
"Bolt her in, constrain her!" But who can watch
the watchmen? They keep quiet about the girl's
secrets and get her as their payment; everyone hushes it up.
Load more comments...