Police mistrust

[JoS]

Why do people not trust the police at all? Not only that but the lack of respect in general for police officers also seems to be surfacing. I am not talking about just on NG, but everywhere, even on the CBC website user comments. These people are given the very dangerous job of protecting us from ourselves, and from others, but many people look at them with contempt, like the police are out to get them.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/22/08 09:12 AM, JoS wrote: Why do people not trust the police at all? Not only that but the lack of respect in general for police officers also seems to be surfacing. but many people look at them with contempt, like the police are out to get them.

;;
that's because most of them are !
Whether you all like it or not, police get PROMOTED based on their PERFORMANCE .
Why do you think that they write so many tickets on certain times of the month?
They have a quota...not a number set in stone, but they have statistical info (ever seen those unmanned portable radar sites) they can see that they have or do not have a speeding problem (for example) in a certain area & they then respond with manned speed traps.
That's not made up, that's right out of my cousins mouth & he's a cop.

While I won't argue with you about them doing a dangerous & often disturbing job (anyone ever seen a people in their small car run over by a Semi ?) Most cops don't protect us, they monitor traffic , they write parking tickets...they are the ones who raise revenue for their 'system' . Sure IF they are present when a crime is taking place they will intervene , but just how often does that happen , out side of T.V. cop shows?

Finally at least around here the police are mindless robots on many issues.
I was recently arrested & held in jail overnight, because my drunk (loaded falling down drunk) wife called the cops & said I had assaulted her.
I had worked late & was sober when they arrived & I told them I hadn't touched her, & look at how drunk she was, & there wasn't a mark on her & she was thrownig dishes when they arrived .
I went outside & was told " Sir, in a domestic dispute where violence has been alledged, we have no choice but to arrest you & put you in jail until you sober up/ & cool down."
You could hear her in the house screaming & smashing shit... & I have to go to jail ! ?! ?!?!
I asked if I could take a breathalyzer test, I was given a spot check test it came back green (no discernable alcohol). I was asked to get in the van, no cuffs. Taken to Halifax lock up, given a private cell & let out the next day at 6 am. No charges for me & when I get home I find out that my wife (ex-wife now) had assaulted one of the cops after I had been taken away & she was in lock up & had been charged !
W.T.F.
So should I be trusting of mindless robots ?
Would you be trusting of people with guns & in authority , who are incapable of original thought ?
If they had her in custody for assaulting an officer, why wasn't I freed immediately ?
It wasn't rocket surgery dude, she was drunk & causing a disturbance.
It sure as hell wasn't brain science, she was busting up the house when they arrived & I was the calm rational one.

Sorry Jos, but as much as they may have a shitty job (or some of them do) and as much of what they do may be necessary.... authoritarians without intelligence & compassion , who get promoted based on their arrest records & their monitary intake for the 'system' doesn't & shouldn't (in my mind anyway) lead to any kind of trust....In fact it's why they are held with a lack of trust & in many cases as you pointed out contempt or distain .

[The-evil-bucket]

At 6/22/08 01:32 PM, SevenSeize wrote: and yes you have crooked cops, but you have crooked bankers and bakers and candlestick makers too so w/e. Not a good enough excuse imo.

But the crooked bankers and bakers and candlestick makers get themselves in trouble with the law. Crooked cops get YOU in trouble with the law.

[D2Kvirus]

At 6/22/08 09:12 AM, JoS wrote: Why do people not trust the police at all? Not only that but the lack of respect in general for police officers also seems to be surfacing. I am not talking about just on NG, but everywhere, even on the CBC website user comments. These people are given the very dangerous job of protecting us from ourselves, and from others, but many people look at them with contempt, like the police are out to get them.

Be thankful of the BBC, then - they never seem to question the police no matter how many innocent civilians they shoot, before trying to cover it up and whitewash the whole thing into oblivion...

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 6/22/08 01:59 PM, SevenSeize wrote: K, you have crooked doctors, crooked teachers, crooked preachers.

Am I the only person who at this point hopes that the rest of Sevens post will rhyme?

You have crooked nuns, crooked firemen....

I find myself greatly disappointed : (

Seriously though, I've never actually come across anyone who dislikes the police. For the most part whenever the police do something people tend to blame it on the Government and not the police themselves ( unless its a fuck up of giant proportions like Charles Demenzes).

[fli]

Depends who you are and where you live.
I for one, do not trust the police in Mexico. They are openly corrupt, and they will "bite your wallet" (a phrase in Mexico) till they will see that you have nothing inside.

If you live in the more un-suburban areas of California... people will constantly see the lack of scrupulous every now and then.

Cops are good, yes... when people are watching them. When there's sunshine laws... when the can feel full accountability for their own personal actions.

Although, I won't say that I mistrust them. But, trust them? nahhhh...

[JoS]

At 6/22/08 09:43 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Whether you all like it or not, police get PROMOTED based on their PERFORMANCE .

Actually thats not entirely correct. You move up the constable ranks based on years of experience. And its not quantity, its quality. If you arrest 50 frunkss its not as good as say finding a stolen car ring.

Why do you think that they write so many tickets on certain times of the month?

Is there something wrong with writing tickets? There are speed limits for a reason, a dam good one too. Do you know how fucking dangerous it would be to drive if there as no traffic enforcement? The night of the black out, when people knew no cops would be on that highway I saw people do like 180 in a 80 km/h zone. Yeah getting a ticket would suck balls, but its necessary. If there was no traffic enforcement you would have car accidents at a ridiculously high rate, pedestrians getting hit all the time, carnage on the streets.

Speeding is illegal, dangerous driving is illegal. Why hate on the cops for doing their job. You think its more important to bust rapists and murderers than traffic enforcement? Fuck the OPP do blitz during the long weekends, everyone knows they are out in full strength with nearly every spare officer, planes and helicopters, yet every time they end up writing thousands of tickets in a weekend, and thats when people know they are doing it.

While I won't argue with you about them doing a dangerous & often disturbing job (anyone ever seen a people in their small car run over by a Semi ?) Most cops don't protect us, they monitor traffic , they write parking tickets...they are the ones who raise revenue for their 'system' .

Very few cities use the police to write parking tickets, its usually by-law officers hired by the city or private companies hired by the city. as I explained already, traffic protects us. Not to mention that traffic stops are one of the most dangerous jobs in policing. You don't know who or what is in that car, not to mention the risk of getting hit by other cars. A RCMP officer was killed in the north in November during a traffic stop, in a town of 400.

Sure IF they are present when a crime is taking place they will intervene , but just how often does that happen , out side of T.V. cop shows?

Patrol officers only make up a portion of police officers. Others work out of the public eye investigating crimes, conducting surveillance, doing community relations work etc etc. Patrol officers not only patrol and look for crimes in progress, but also respond to 9-11 calls, everything from alarms to fights to suspicious activity to robberies.

I did a night time ride along with the OPP in a county near where I lived for school. The population of the townships we patrolled was maybe 1000, in the wintertime (ie very fucking cold outside) and we pulled over 1 car for driving suspiciously (possible drunk driver, but turned out to be nothing and they were allowed to leave) 2 cars for no taillights (neither of which received a ticket), 1 speeding ticket and 1 ticket for expired plates. We responded to a house to check on the status of the occupant (he had no phone and his mother in another province was hospitalized so we were asked to inform him), responded as backup to a drunk driver who was pulled over (twelve empty and one half full bottle on the passenger seat). We also responded to a call about teenagers drinking and tobogganing behind someones house at 2 am although they were gone by the time we arrived. We also spent some time chasing a drunk driver trying to elude us, but by the time we found and caught up to him he had pulled off the road and into his driveway (ie we can no longer do anything to him).

That was a quite night in a rural area.

Finally at least around here the police are mindless robots on many issues.

Police officers have to go by standard operating procedures, and the law. While there is some room for discretion, they have to follow orders and policy first.

I was recently arrested & held in jail overnight, because my drunk (loaded falling down drunk) wife called the cops & said I had assaulted her.
I had worked late & was sober when they arrived & I told them I hadn't touched her, & look at how drunk she was, & there wasn't a mark on her & she was thrownig dishes when they arrived .
I went outside & was told " Sir, in a domestic dispute where violence has been alleged, we have no choice but to arrest you & put you in jail until you sober up/ & cool down."

While this sucks for you, I am sure you cna understand the reason for such a policy. How many people in a domestic violence situation are going to admit to it? In the past there was a lot of discretion used by officers, often with very negative outcomes. Rules were put in place to protect the victim, and while sometimes this is abused by someone, the consequences of the police siding with the abuser are far greater than them siding with the abusee.

You could hear her in the house screaming & smashing shit... & I have to go to jail ! ?! ?!?!
I asked if I could take a breathalyzer test, I was given a spot check test it came back green (no discernable alcohol). I was asked to get in the van, no cuffs. Taken to Halifax lock up, given a private cell & let out the next day at 6 am. No charges for me & when I get home I find out that my wife (ex-wife now) had assaulted one of the cops after I had been taken away & she was in lock up & had been charged !

By your own admission, they were very nice to you. they did not cuff you, gave you a private cell and released you early in the morning. The did everything they could to make this as comfortable or as little inconvenience for you as possible. My guess is they were simply following SOP and had no choice in the matter.

W.T.F.
So should I be trusting of mindless robots ?
Would you be trusting of people with guns & in authority , who are incapable of original thought ?

I dont think you quite understand the concept of how law enforcement works. You follow orders, directives, SOP and a host of regulations. Within those there is some room for movement, but essentially if a police officer is told to do something and its legal, it is to be done. Those policies and orders are there for a reason. While there is room for individual thinking, there are some things they have to do. Law enforcement and the military are very different from the private sector.

Sorry Jos, but as much as they may have a shitty job (or some of them do) and as much of what they do may be necessary.... authoritarians without intelligence & compassion , who get promoted based on their arrest records & their monitary intake for the 'system' doesn't & shouldn't (in my mind anyway) lead to any kind of trust....In fact it's why they are held with a lack of trust & in many cases as you pointed out contempt or distain .

Your view of law enforcement is very skewed based upon a few bad experiences. They aren't just there to make money for "the man". A lot of the jobs you attribute to police officers are in fact not doen by the police, but rather by-law officers. Other jobs like traffic enforcement, while shitty to you are very important.

The most hated law enforcement agency in any country is always Customs, because they interact with normally law abiding individuals who have committed in most cases only a minor crime to which they see no really point to. There is a reason you cant bring peaches into Canada. Most people do not understand the problems that could arise if nothing was done about it, so they hate on them for doing their job, which they merely do not understand the reason for.

[morefngdbs]

At 6/22/08 01:59 PM, SevenSeize wrote: and if you guys wanna scream conspiracy and hate on a group of powerful people for being corrupt, you need to look toward your politicians, local, state, and federal because those fellas have far more control over you than police.

;;
I agree with you on the issue of corupt people being in pretty much just about every occupation out there, when a system like they have here in Canada , takes innocent people & puts them in jail on the word of a drunk... I personally take exception to that Seven.
I have an Uncle who is a retired cop, a cousin who is a mountie(federal police), another who is a town police officer & my good friend & cousin is a prison guard.

While I wouldn't wish some of the """stuff"" they have told me about on anyone, the fact that people who supposedly , well trained, intelligent & officers of the law, who will put you in jail, even when its obvious that you haven't done anything wrong.
I really don't have any personal problems with the police, but often their actions infuriate the innocent, When a little discretion & understanding could go a long way to prevent that.
Well ,I have a real problem with that & as I put in my first response to Jos, that is -in My opinion- why police are often held in contempt & as out to get you.

I learned at the court during my ex's trial on assaulting a cop while intoxicated, that the incident happened befor they were even off of our street & the 2 officers who had me in the van were informed she was being arrested for assault !
So why hold me ?
There was obviously no problem with me, hell they didn't even put me in handcuffs because i was 100% cooperative, I hadn't done anything except come home from work !
The problems were 100% caused by her & her druckin' behavior.

shit , I hope I'm not going to have my first argument with Seven :'(

[Kleinhans]

the mistakes of the few cause the grief of the many. basically human nature is at fault (not to mention the media) but non the less they do their best to protect us and we take it for granted

[stafffighter]

Maybe I'm just too small town America but I've never had a problem with cops. The one time in my life I was pulled over one of the cops was fair but understandably stern, and the other was a complete asshole. I don't know if they were playing roles or what but even at the moment I took it as "this cop is an asshole" not "cops are assholes." At one point the "nice" one was looking in my car and said "I see mariajauna seeds." He didn't. In retrospect he was trying to catch me defending their presence, which I get because I was driving badly enough to be pulled over. I went home that night. Doing the alphabet without singing is hard.
The truth of the matter is that a lot of what police do isn't readily visable, especially to people who don't have occasion to run into cops. The fact is a lot of bad shit happens in the world and police manage a decent chunk of it.
More, not to trivialize your situation but there are times when there is procedure, sometimes just for the sake of removing a spark from the situation. You weren't handcuffed, you weren't charged, you had a private cell that you left first thing in the morning. Do you even conceive of how diffrently your night would have gone if they thought you had hit her?
But like I said, I'm small town. I had a friend from highschool who became a cop. The local bookstore is run by the cop who ran the dare program until he retired. I've had good expereinces.

[Jon-86]

All of my life and im in my 20s now I have never liked the police! I have never been arrested. But when growing up I have had nothing but bad experiences with them. Same goes for everyone I know. Being a grass (a rat as you might say) is like a crime itself where I live. People who grass become outcasts!

I do recognies that the police at supposed to be their to help, and they they are just people who think they are doing good, but its just never been the case for me. To me their useless have never served any real purpose where Ilived and are a waste of money for all the good they have done.

CCTV baing another wast of money, but ave already talked about that!

[hotfacts4you]

Cops are just doing their job. They are assigned to do what they do. It is stupid how people automatically point fingers at them for getting them in trouble. Police can only get you in trouble if YOU break the law. People complain about getting tickets for going 5 over the speed limit. The speed limit is a law that should be followed on the road. You broke it so now you have to face consequences.

I'd much rather have an overprotective police force then a less protective one.

[Jon-86]

Well for me its the opposite of that. Its them not doing their job. Its them turning a blind eye. When I was a kid they didnt even patrol our area. THey didnt come when they were called. If you could convince them to cime. Their would be an armoured van with about eight of them in flack vests. We were only luck the fire brigade didnt take the same line, nor did the ambulances. But you couldnt get a doctor to come to your house.

In that sense I will neve change my opinion of the police in this country from what it was in the 90s.

[cellardoor6]

I generally respect the police, but what I don't like is that since law enforcement in general is good, people like yourself think that just about anything a cop does is thus justified and defensible. You're more willing to let what cops do slide because you have an overly optimistic view of authority as a whole. You also have a differing view on what authority is supposed to do.

I've had some rough run ins with police a few times, I've seen police do very shady things and get away with them. It is absolutely ridiculous when people defend them with the line you're using, basically that they are doing an important, dangerous, high-stress job, thus you should turn a blind eye to it. On the other hand, I've seen the police do absolutely reasonable things, only to have completely wacked out idiots claim it was an atrocity.

In the end, I like to look at police with complete neutrality and judge each thing they do. Police are supposed to serve and protect. When they do that with integrity, awesome. But just because they are sworn to do this doesn't mean that this is always what they do. When they do things that completely contradict that oath, the simple fact they took that oath means precisely jackshit to me. Wearing a badge and a uniform does not give the police a license to be complete dickheads. However, it also doesn't mean that they are automatically dickeads like some people believe.

I find this funny though:

At 6/22/08 09:12 AM, JoS wrote: These people are given the very dangerous job of protecting us from ourselves:

Only someone who truly believes it is the duty of authority to babysit us all believes this. How far does that extend to exactly? If we get arrested and put in jail for years and years for victimless crimes, is this a case of the police "protecting us from ourselves"?

but many people look at them with contempt, like the police are out to get them.

The police as a whole may not be out to get us, but some individual cops may very well be. Since they are cops, they can probably get away with it, that is what scares people. However, the whole "fuck the police" attitude is equally stupid.

[JT1]

Police are out-of-control. They are conditioned to think of themselves as different from the general population, and to think of citizens as "the enemy."

Where I live, every bit of drug evidence was stolen by policeman in late 2007. Cops and their families put square, black stickers with a horizontal bar of blue in the middle on their cars so that other cops won't bother them.

One cop was dealing drugs to my neighbor who is a fireman while my neighbor was suspended for molesting my 11-year-old retarded brother with William's Syndrome about two years ago. When my family had an electrical fire in my house, my neighbors friends in the Fire and Police Departments tried to frame my other younger brother with arson. I think that alone is enough reason to distrust policemen.

What really made me distrust policemen was a few years ago, a man pulled out of a fastfood drive-thru the wrong way. A police car started chasing him down the highway. They struck and killed a pregnant woman whose car broke down on the side of the rode. The cop effectively committed a hit-and-run murder because a man came out of a drive-thru the wrong way.

Then, I keep discovering innocent people murdered by policemen. Men, women and children tasered to death, killed by "nonlethal" bean-bag or tear-gas guns, run down by speeding police cars, or shot.

It is a well-known fact in my city that the policemen lie to and intimidate residents. They take advantage of immigrants or ignorant minorities. Policemen will lie to these people, telling them that they have to consent to searches when they do not, or that they have to answer questions when they do not. One of their favorite tricks is to tell someone that they have a warrant, and then search areas not covered in the warrant or seize property not described in the warrant.

Police are a necessary evil. I am disgusted by the corruption and uncontrolled violence displayed by the police. There should be more restraint and more oversight in law enforcement.

[n64kid]

According to one of those career.com surveys, police officer makes the top 10 most respected jobs.
10) Accountant (0.9%)
9) Architect (1.9%)
8) Police Officer (4.0%)
7) Engineer (4.6%)
6) Scientist (5.7%)
5) CEO (8.2%)
4) Firefighter (9.7%)
3) Teacher (16.4%)
2) Soldier (18.8%)
1) Doctor (27.3%)

Who the hell would ever vote teacher?

Anywho, I saw this mentioned above about speeding tickets.
Consider this:

Tickets waste everyone's time and money.

The speeder pays the initial cost of the ticket, traffic school, while having higher premiums on auto insurance. Then they have psychological problems and feelings of incompetence and weakness. The time and money spent could be going to better use, because, a speeding ticket is just another tax.

The government spends, atleast in Los Angeles, tens of millions each year just for fuel of public service vehicles. That's just for one city... the second largest city, but still one city. Then there are court cases. How many you ask? Below will be a lovely chart displaying a typical proportion of how much of the courts time spends on traffic violations. Nationwide billions are spent just to be able to give speeding tickets, with every negative weighed in, it's probably a loss to the government.

Compliments of peoples-law.org

[stafffighter]

At 6/22/08 10:10 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 6/22/08 09:12 AM, JoS wrote: Why do people not trust the police at all?

Because they're stupid. I hate that "No snitching" campaign going on in urban areas. Yeah, let's help gangsters get away with crime, woo.

Living in the ghetto is nothing to be proud of

Yes, I saw that episode of the Bookdocks too. It's more an idea of racial unity than territory. Since I clearly watched more than the first couple minutes after aqua teens ended this makes me more expereinced than you.

[JoS]

I do nto believe all police actions are automatically justified. I do realize and acknowledge that some actions undertaken by some officers are wrong. However as a former Immigration officer, I can see th other side of the story as well. What to the average eprson seems unreasonable, to those who are expeirenced or trained in the field see it differently, see why some action was taken.

What I am talking about here though is the "all cops suck" mentality that many people seem to carry. I actually saw one person comment on the CBC website (not the reporters, a person posting a comment on a story), that they did not even want to hear the police's view on the situation as they always lie and are nto to be trusted. I assume most people who post on CBC are slightly older and more mature than say NG General, so to see an obviously misguided view of police shocked me. Do not even get me started on the No one is illegal campaign.

[slipknotfan591]

At 6/22/08 09:12 AM, JoS wrote: Why do people not trust the police at all?

Bc the ACLU in their infinite wisdom painted them as bloodthirsty gunmen

[Jon-86]

At 6/22/08 06:19 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: However, the whole "fuck the police" attitude is equally stupid.

At 6/22/08 10:10 PM, Grammer wrote: Because they're stupid. I hate that "No snitching" campaign going on in urban areas. Yeah, let's help gangsters get away with crime, woo.

Well im gonna come right in and defend that attitude! It might be different in America. But this is not entirly dont to 'let criminals get away with it' its not done out of frear. As I said before when I was growing up the police didnt come. Crime would have been rife if we didnt in a sense 'self-police' I have no quams with rapists and wife beaters getting nearly beat to death and chased away. I would never give evidence agains such actions.

But thats just how I see it. Where most of you live its different. So you obviouslt have to solve your problems your own why. Im just saying that this attitude isnt always uncalled for!

[Loch-Ness-Monster]

I'm going to have a bit of a bias here, my dad and older brother are in the police and they obviously have a lot of friends in the job, so I know a lot of police officers. Nearly all of them that I know are decent guys doing a difficult job. Particularly in this country, governments have always seemed intent on making the job more difficult for them, so much bureaucracy, targets which prevent them on focusing on the crimes which really matter and all the politically correct bullshit. The police have traditionally been respected among most of the population here, but all this crap is damaging public confidence in them.

[Lindione]

I treat each individual officer differently and in most circumstances I give them the fullest respect. However, if they are crooked or not helping things, I doubt I would give them much respect. The problem that occurs sometimes is that there is too much sheer paperwork with everything and regulation after regulation.

[Elfer]

It kind of gets into a bad cycle where people don't like cops, so cops get pissed off and act like dicks to people more, which causes people to further dislike cops.

Also, particularly in America, the crackdown on recreational drug use and underage drinking just doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

I find that the best policy is to know all of your rights, but still be friendly to police officers. Just remember that despite the uniform and the job description, you're still dealing with people, and a spoonful of sugar in time saves nine times as many flies as vinegar.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

Because it's up to ME to "protect me from myself", not a fucking greaseball in a grey suit. They have absolutely no right to bust into my house or attempt to get searches on me because they, say, don't like certain sex acts I do with consenting adults, or don't like the chemicals I put into my body.

If a civilian bust into my house to attempt and find out if I've been "harming" myself, I'd likely point a gun at them and order them to leave. But, what, because they have a badge, socially unacceptable behavior is now acceptable?

Furthermore, these idiots get money to do their job incompetently, and like any other government branch, are not held accountable to their crimes. Theres this moronic deal that police officers automatically get reduced sentences because they happen to know the D.A, or whatever the hell it is, and if they happen to fuck up and kill someone on duty, hey, no trouble.

Imagine if a construction worker did this. Imagine if in the course of a construction workers day, he mistook his foreman for a criminal suspect, beat him to death with a steel pipe, then revealed he was an innocent man. The worker would be executed by the state; a police officer killing someone over mistaken identity gets a reprimand, possibly a paid vacation.

[JoS]

At 6/23/08 10:49 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: Because it's up to ME to "protect me from myself", not a fucking greaseball in a grey suit. They have absolutely no right to bust into my house or attempt to get searches on me because they, say, don't like certain sex acts I do with consenting adults, or don't like the chemicals I put into my body.

The social contract dictates that a greaseball in a grey suit (I am assuming you are refering to politicians who make laws) dictates what you can and cannot do inexchange for the protect and services you receive. If you don't like the contract you can try and get it changed through various means (such as voting, running for office, legal challenges), leave the state and go somewhere else or simply suck it up and deal with it. This contract also gives the police the right to go into your house, if they follow certain legal guidelines.

If a civilian bust into my house to attempt and find out if I've been "harming" myself, I'd likely point a gun at them and order them to leave. But, what, because they have a badge, socially unacceptable behavior is now acceptable?

If your house was on fire would you have a problem with the firefighters kicking in your door, or would you point a gun at them too? The reason the police are there in the first place is dealing with something society has decided was socially unacceptable. I do not see you complaining about drug dealers selling drugs, since that is socially unacceptable. Oh I forgot, that does not fit your agenda.

Furthermore, these idiots get money to do their job incompetently, and like any other government branch, are not held accountable to their crimes. Theres this moronic deal that police officers automatically get reduced sentences because they happen to know the D.A, or whatever the hell it is, and if they happen to fuck up and kill someone on duty, hey, no trouble.

I would like to see your proof of this deal, police officers getting reduced sentences.

Imagine if a construction worker did this. Imagine if in the course of a construction workers day, he mistook his foreman for a criminal suspect, beat him to death with a steel pipe, then revealed he was an innocent man. The worker would be executed by the state; a police officer killing someone over mistaken identity gets a reprimand, possibly a paid vacation.

So your telling me a police officer was walking down the street, thought he saw a criminal so he shot him for no reason other than he thought he was someone else. Or did he think it was someone else, confronted them to see who they were, and they did something stupid?

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/23/08 11:56 PM, JoS wrote:

The social contract dictates that a greaseball in a grey suit (I am assuming you are refering to politicians who make laws) dictates what you can and cannot do inexchange for the protect and services you receive. If you don't like the contract you can try and get it changed through various means (such as voting, running for office, legal challenges), leave the state and go somewhere else or simply suck it up and deal with it. This contract also gives the police the right to go into your house, if they follow certain legal guidelines.

"Look, we don't make the rules, we just blindly follow them, support them, and try to further them and expand them" is the exact argument that didn't work at Nuremburg. It's not going to work on me, either.

If your house was on fire would you have a problem with the firefighters kicking in your door, or would you point a gun at them too?

My house fire endangers the lives of others.

The reason the police are there in the first place is dealing with something society has decided was socially unacceptable.

Haha. So, now your supporting lethal/implied lethal (let's be honest, people only obey the police because they have guns and clubs) force for people that don't conform to society?

So, for example, homosexuallity, swearing, being a satanist, being a racist, Being a certain race the country doesn't like, and joining the wrong political party should be illegal, because the majority doesn't like it?

Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I do not see you complaining about drug dealers selling drugs, since that is socially unacceptable. Oh I forgot, that does not fit your agenda.

I don't not complain about drug dealers selling drugs because "it doesn't fit my agenda", I don't complain about drug dealers because I think drugs should be legal.

Hell, if a cop wants to sell drugs, more power too him.

I would like to see your proof of this deal, police officers getting reduced sentences.

Brian Hewitt beat a man within an inch of his life, while the man was handcuffed, and wasn't put in prison, whereas a civillian would be. And if a civillian had sniped Vicky Weaver, unarmed, in the back of the head, simply to 'get back at her husband' like the FBI did, that civillian would be executed.

So your telling me a police officer was walking down the street, thought he saw a criminal so he shot him for no reason other than he thought he was someone else. Or did he think it was someone else, confronted them to see who they were, and they did something stupid?

Police officers have, on MULTIPLE occasions, opened fire on people they suspected of being criminals, when in reality they where not.

[JoS]

At 6/24/08 02:09 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: "Look, we don't make the rules, we just blindly follow them, support them, and try to further them and expand them" is the exact argument that didn't work at Nuremburg. It's not going to work on me, either.

I would say there is a difference between the Holocaust and the job of a police officer? Would you prefer we lived in a society with no laws, and therefore no one to enforce such laws? A place where you were free t do whatever you want, whenever you want? I certainly do not, because that would not be a pleasant place to live. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. If someone doesn't like you, they can kill you because there are no repercussions. People can steal your shit whenever they want.

If your house was on fire would you have a problem with the firefighters kicking in your door, or would you point a gun at them too?

My house fire endangers the lives of others.

Drugs risk the lives of others. Drug labs are very dangerous places and can explode and kill innocent people. There have been cases of people high on drugs getting into cars or other situations where they endanger the lives of others. How do drug users pay for their habits? In some cities it is etimated that drugs are the reaosn behind 1/3 of all property crime (theft etc).

Haha. So, now your supporting lethal/implied lethal (let's be honest, people only obey the police because they have guns and clubs) force for people that don't conform to society?

No, I would say most people obey the police because they respect their authority. People obey bouncers, yet they have no weapons. People obey lifeguards, yet they have no weapons. People obey Customs and Immigration and they have no guns (in Canada, only a few officers are armed at land borders, but none in the airport). Most people obey authority because it is what they are conditioned to do, its what society feels is correct.

So, for example, homosexuallity, swearing, being a satanist, being a racist, Being a certain race the country doesn't like, and joining the wrong political party should be illegal, because the majority doesn't like it?

That is not what I said. Under the social contract society is governed by laws, and under a constitutional government society dictates the the norms, but when society is wrong the government steps in and changes the contract to adapt to the needs of all members of society. I do nto advocate a tyranny of the majority such as you would find under a democracy. Society is nto simply the majority, its all of society, so sometimes whats right is not what is popular.

When you look outside the sphere of individual rights, protection of the person, then societal norms take over in dictating behavior and laws. A comparison between racism and drug use is not comparing apples and apples. Besides, laws dictate actions, being a racist is not an action, lynching and tarring black people is outlawed. You can want to do drugs, you just can't actually do them. Its not socially acceptable to be racist, but its allowed legally. Its what you do with that racism that the law controls.

Some people think its okay for adults to have sexual relations with children, should we make it legal for them then?

Thats the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Read Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan and/or Aristotle Politics Book 4 Chapter 8
Aristotle here

I don't not complain about drug dealers selling drugs because "it doesn't fit my agenda", I don't complain about drug dealers because I think drugs should be legal.

That was my point, you will always be biased against the police and pro-drugs, no matter the circumstances because you want drugs to be legal, that is your agenda. I am biased in favor of the police, but I am not blinded by my bias, and I have been critical of the police in some discussions, as I have been critical of criminals in others. While I do not believe that drugs should be legal, especially hard drugs, I believe in the law and will obey it regardless of my personal beliefs.

Socrates was arrested and faced execution for an unjust law. however since it was a law, when he was offered a chance to escape by his guards he refused to do so, and drank the hemlock to preform his own execution, the punishment he was given.

Brian Hewitt beat a man within an inch of his life, while the man was handcuffed, and wasn't put in prison, whereas a civillian would be. And if a civillian had sniped Vicky Weaver, unarmed, in the back of the head, simply to 'get back at her husband' like the FBI did, that civillian would be executed.

The other officer involved in that incident was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The LAPD Rampart Crash Division is an exceptional case of police corruption, however I would like to point out that 14 members of Rampart have been convicted and are serving time in jail from armed robbery to drug trafficking to murder.

And not that this excuses the officers actions, but you failed to mention that the individual was a member of the 18th Street Gang, one of the most violent gangs in LA, and anywhere in the US. How many beatings and killings are committed by gang members who do not end up in jail. Unfortunately, justice does not always prevail, on both sides of the line. Even when dealing with violent gang members, police should not stoop to dirty tactics and play by their own rules.

Police officers have, on MULTIPLE occasions, opened fire on people they suspected of being criminals, when in reality they where not.

Outside of the few cases of extreme police corruption this rarely occurs. Police are only to fire in protection of themselves or the public from death or grievous bodily harm. Are there accidents, yes, but there are accidentally shootings committed by civilians of other civilians too. Believe it or not, most cops are good people.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 6/24/08 11:45 AM, JoS wrote:

I would say there is a difference between the Holocaust and the job of a police officer?

I would say study the Nuremburg trials some more. Those arguments wheren't rejected on the grounds that "Hey, that's a good argument... but the Holocaust was still bad so we're going to execute you". The arguments where denied because "I didn't make the rules, I just supported them and expanded them" is a fundementally flawed way to claim "innocence".

Would you prefer we lived in a society with no laws, and therefore no one to enforce such laws? A place where you were free t do whatever you want, whenever you want? I certainly do not, because that would not be a pleasant place to live. Life in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. If someone doesn't like you, they can kill you because there are no repercussions. People can steal your shit whenever they want.

Lol. Also, if you don't think that Boxers should be arrested for "assaulting" their opponent in the ring, then you also automatically think boxers shouldn't be arrested for agrivating rape.

It's so fun to completely ignore the subject, and randomly pointing out some moronically improbable worst case scenario to avoid actually arguing, isn't it?

Drugs risk the lives of others. Drug labs are very dangerous places and can explode and kill innocent people.

Yes, because the Government prevents companies from making safe drug labs. That's like saying "Cars should be illegal, because when made out of scraps in some guys basement, they are likely to fall apart".

You can't state something should be illegal, because it's dangerous when it's illegal.

Oh, and by the way; it's possible to USE a substance without growing/making it.

There have been cases of people high on drugs getting into cars or other situations where they endanger the lives of others.

There have been cases of people without a lot of sleep getting in cars and endangering others. Should sleep be regulated by the government? Why not legalize drugs and make it illegal to drive under the influence of any narcotics that alter your ability to drive?

How do drug users pay for their habits? In some cities it is etimated that drugs are the reaosn behind 1/3 of all property crime (theft etc).

Rich people don't smoke crack. People living on the street, stealing to support their habit, are people that where poor to begain with and would be stealing anyway.

No, I would say most people obey the police because they respect their authority. People obey bouncers, yet they have no weapons.

Again, people obey bouncers because of force. If you do not obey a bouncer, they call the police on you. If police "asked" people to do something, as opposed to "Get on the floor or we taze you/take you down", there would be anarchy. Your idealistic to the point of idiocy to believe the police would be just as fine off and would get as much complience if they made requests instead of legal demands.

People obey lifeguards, yet they have no weapons.

The lifeguards kick you out of the pool, and call the police if you don't leave.

People obey Customs and Immigration and they have no guns (in Canada, only a few officers are armed at land borders, but none in the airport). Most people obey authority because it is what they are conditioned to do, its what society feels is correct.

Cops in Canada can still use force.

That is not what I said.

That's EXACTLY what you said. You said things that are SOCIALLY UNACCEPTED should be illegal.

Under the social contract society is governed by laws, and under a constitutional government society dictates the the norms, but when society is wrong the government steps in and changes the contract to adapt to the needs of all members of society.

More amazingly ignorent liberal rhetoric. "When the ignorant people in a country are wrong about what they want, it's the governments job to come in and tell them what they really want".

Get this; SOCIETY IS NEVER WRONG. The government IS society. Without the approval and support of that "wrong" society, there IS NO GOVERNMENT.

I do nto advocate a tyranny of the majority such as you would find under a democracy. Society is nto simply the majority, its all of society, so sometimes whats right is not what is popular.

Yes, it is. It's up to society to determine what THEY find right and to be in environments where they are surrounded by "whats right" to them. It's not up to the government to say (for example) "Gee... I know everyone wants to eat cake for dessert, but people are just confused, Pie is better. I'll give you pie."

Government SHOULD NOT get involved in legistating "social norms", it should be up to private civillians to deal with that.

When you look outside the sphere of individual rights, protection of the person, then societal norms take over in dictating behavior and laws. A comparison between racism and drug use is not comparing apples and apples. Besides, laws dictate actions, being a racist is not an action, lynching and tarring black people is outlawed. You can want to do drugs, you just can't actually do them. Its not socially acceptable to be racist, but its allowed legally. Its what you do with that racism that the law controls.

Actually, it's not illegal to be racist, period; including "actions" such as writing "N*ggers go home" on a webpage.

Some people think its okay for adults to have sexual relations with children, should we make it legal for them then?

If it's scientifically found that sex with children doesn't harm children at all, and that children have the mental ability to consent, sure, go ahead.

That was my point, you will always be biased against the police and pro-drugs, no matter the circumstances because you want drugs to be legal, that is your agenda. I am biased in favor of the police, but I am not blinded by my bias, and I have been critical of the police in some discussions, as I have been critical of criminals in others. While I do not believe that drugs should be legal, especially hard drugs, I believe in the law and will obey it regardless of my personal beliefs.
Socrates was arrested and faced execution for an unjust law. however since it was a law, when he was offered a chance to escape by his guards he refused to do so, and drank the hemlock to preform his own execution, the punishment he was given.

Yeah, Rosa Parks was a damned scumbag criminal.

The other officer involved in that incident was charged and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. The LAPD Rampart Crash Division is an exceptional case of police corruption, however I would like to point out that 14 members of Rampart have been convicted and are serving time in jail from armed robbery to drug trafficking to murder.

14 convicted, out of dozens that where KNOWN to be corrupt. They punish the crimes society wouldn't allow them to let go of, but let the beatings, assaults, and perjuries go unpunished.

And not that this excuses the officers actions, but you failed to mention that the individual was a member of the 18th Street Gang, one of the most violent gangs in LA, and anywhere in the US.

And you fail to mention that CRASH is one of the REASONS they are so powerful.

How many beatings and killings are committed by gang members who do not end up in jail. Unfortunately, justice does not always prevail, on both sides of the line. Even when dealing with violent gang members, police should not stoop to dirty tactics and play by their own rules.

And D.A's should learn to prosecute cops.

Outside of the few cases of extreme police corruption this rarely occurs. Police are only to fire in protection of themselves or the public from death or grievous bodily harm. Are there accidents, yes, but there are accidentally shootings committed by civilians of other civilians too. Believe it or not, most cops are good people.

It doesn't matter. "MOST cops don't shoot innocent suspects" doesn't excuse the fact that some do, and they do not get put in prison for

[JoS]

At 6/24/08 10:06 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: is a fundementally flawed way to claim "innocence".

Thats not the point I was arguing. The point I was arguing is there is a difference between genocide and law enforcement. But under your logic everyone who has ever served on a jury and convicted a person should be placed on trial, court reporters, fuck the man who cleans the courtroom is guilty of perpetuating the system. Kill them all.

Your entire argument is flawed. How do we arrest and charge police officers without police officers to arrest them? The US military thought it would be a good idea to get rid of allt he police and military in Iraq when they first took over, look how well that turned out for them. Looting, violence, carnage.

The fact of the matter is, we need police for society to function.

Lol. Also, if you don't think that Boxers should be arrested for "assaulting" their opponent in the ring, then you also automatically think boxers shouldn't be arrested for agrivating rape.

Its a consenting relationship between the two boxers. That is nto assault. If I tell you to punch me in the face and you punch me, that is not assault. I do not see how rape has anything to do with this.

It's so fun to completely ignore the subject, and randomly pointing out some moronically improbable worst case scenario to avoid actually arguing, isn't it?

You mean in a discussion about police saying why police are necessary is moronic. Just because you do not understand the concepts behind it does not make them moronic. Seriously, what do you think would happen if there was no police, we would all live happily and peacefully, and life would be perfect?

Oh, and by the way; it's possible to USE a substance without growing/making it.

Yeah, but someone has to make it for you to USE it.

There have been cases of people without a lot of sleep getting in cars and endangering others.

You can actually be charged if you are falling asleep at the wheel. Why not make it illegal just to drive on narcotics, because its not the only way you can be dangerous on drugs. I'm sure the government loves scraping your ass off the pavement when you jump off a roof on LSD thinking you can fly.

Rich people don't smoke crack. People living on the street, stealing to support their habit, are people that where poor to begain with and would be stealing anyway.

So they have to steal more to pay for their habit and for their food. And I like how you generalized everyone who is poor is a thief. Saying people who are poor would be stealing anyways is implying that poor people steal, and only poor people. Last time I checked Winnona Ryder wasn't that poor.

Your idealistic to the point of idiocy to believe the police would be just as fine off and would get as much complience if they made requests instead of legal demands.

Not quite what I said or at least meant. Most people comply with the police requests because they believe its the right thing to do. A small majority of the population only replies because of the risk of force being used against them, or actually having force used against them. I have been stopped by the police simply because of the way I was dressed, but I stopped because I respect their authority, not because of their tool belt.

On the flip side, I have had at work people only reply to my requests because I threatened force (in all fairness he threatened me first).

That's EXACTLY what you said. You said things that are SOCIALLY UNACCEPTED should be illegal.

If you read the Aristotle link I sent you you would have seen exactly what I mean. Socially unacceptable practices should be illegal, unless it is simply a tyranny of the majority. A constitutional government is a mixture of pure democracy to support the views of society and an oligarchy to protect from the irrationality of society. Socially unacceptable things should be illegal, unless the fall into a narrow category of what a good constitution should protect, every individuals basic human and political rights. The right to inject, inhale or ingest anything you want to is not one of those rights.

More amazingly ignorent liberal rhetoric. "When the ignorant people in a country are wrong about what they want, it's the governments job to come in and tell them what they really want".

Whats right is not always whats popular. People didn't want to give black people the right to vote.

Get this; SOCIETY IS NEVER WRONG. The government IS society. Without the approval and support of that "wrong" society, there IS NO GOVERNMENT.

It depends on how adamant a society is about that decision. If there is enough resentment, the social contract will be changed. If people can deal with it then there will not be a change.

I would like to point out that your point actually helps me more than it would you, since most of society feels that drugs should be illegal and that police are to be respected.

Yes, it is. It's up to society to determine what THEY find right and to be in environments where they are surrounded by "whats right" to them. It's not up to the government to say (for example) "Gee... I know everyone wants to eat cake for dessert, but people are just confused, Pie is better. I'll give you pie."

Most of society is for the police and against drugs, I do not see how this helps your arguement that we should get rid of the police. The fact that you keep resorting to trivial and ridiculous examples, rather than something of substance just shows that you are not able to make a convincing argument, because there is none to be made. So rather than posting substance, you post drival in hopes of getting so fucking far off topic that no one notices you do not have a clue.

Government SHOULD NOT get involved in legistating "social norms", it should be up to private civillians to deal with that.

So everyone should make their own laws to abide by? Or society as a group should make up laws, through direct democracy, rather than representatives. So essentially a pure democracy, which is a perversion, not a good form of government.

Actually, it's not illegal to be racist, period; including "actions" such as writing "N*ggers go home" on a webpage.

I actually did say it was not illegal to be racist, I said what you do with that racism can be illegal. Yes, it is legal to write on a website how you hate certain people, but its not okay to tar and feather people for being black, or burn down a mosque. Certain actions of racism are tolerated by law, while others are not. I in no way implied that every single racist action is illegal. Once again you are nti picking on single details in an attempt to avoid actually trying to engage the topic.

14 convicted, out of dozens that where KNOWN to be corrupt. They punish the crimes society wouldn't allow them to let go of, but let the beatings, assaults, and perjuries go unpunished.

Dozens that were known to be corrupt? You mean the 70 officers one officer ratted on when he got arrested, most of which there wasn't even enough evidence to bring about internal discipline against, never mind criminal charges?

And D.A's should learn to prosecute cops.

You should learn more about how the justice system works. You need evidence to convict someone, enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Not always the easiest to build a case against a cop, when your victim was pinched for something. They do not seem very credible to a jury. That is not the DA's fault. How would you decide which side to take? The cop could be lying to beat the charge, or the complainant could be lying to get back at the cop for arresting them, or to try and get out of their charge.

Besides, its not just cops who sometimes get away with crimes, so do normal people.

I would rather you didnt reply to this post, see my next post and reply to that one, and then add comments about this one if you wish.

[JoS]

Answer these 4 questions for me.

1. What do you think would happen to society as a whole if we got rid of police officers?

2. What should the governments job be, to implement laws that conform to the wishes of the majority of society, or to protect the individual from tyranny of the majority, the minority, the rich, the poor etc, even if it opposes what the majority want?

3. Is society (ie the majority) always right, or can they be wrong?

4. How do you tell who is telling the truth, the officer, or the complainant?