Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/26/08 12:07 AM, JoS wrote:

I didnt derail his argument, he opening post in a thread about trusting the police was saying he alone should decide what sex acts and drugs he puts into his body, then using the analogies of a construction worker beating to death his foreman, as that was somehow representative of police actions in their entirety. Perhaps I did get overzealous in my reply s, but the argument was on wobbly tracks to begin with.

Yes, you did derail it. I said police make mistakes, and you hysterically went off with "Well what if we lived in a world with no police and everyone was killing janitors and blah blah blah". That's derailing; you ask questions irrelevent to my point in the hopes that overblowing everything will make me look "wrong".

Actually my stance on drugs is not hysteria. I personally believe that pot should be de-criminalize for possession (ie no jail time), and be approved for medical use. Growing and selling should be illegal unless you have a prescription or a license to manufacture medicinal or sell it (ie pharmacy).

Your arguments against me HAVE been hysteria, though.

I was trying to keep the discussion on-topic, that is about police officers, and not about drug laws. If you or anyone else wants to have a discussion on drug laws, this is not the thread for it. If you want to discuss police officers roles in upholding laws that some may find wrong, then argue about that, but not about what US drug law should look like.

It's all relevent. I argued that police are oppressive for regulating drugs; you said it's not their faults, men in suits are the ones that make it illegal.

However, once again, Police officers then expand those laws, give harsher punishments, and blatantly lie in anti-drug programs.

A good area to explore would be perhaps the Nuremberg defense of they were doing as they were told.

I know that's a good area too explore. That's THE REASON I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING, and you told me it's irrelevent because Genocide is different from drug illegalization.

While there certainly is a difference between uphold the legal code and assisting in a genocide, do police really have discretion for choosing which laws to uphold and which to ignore? Or is there really no difference between assisting genocide and enforcing the laws of a country (assuming the laws are "wrong" and not genocide).

If members of the armed forces are not only allowed to disregard orders that are illegal or immoral, and are actually legally OBLIGATED to disregard those orders. If the military, the thing that is fueled by a rigid ability to follow orders, has the right to disregard "bad" orders, then so do police.

At 6/26/08 04:46 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 6/26/08 12:07 AM, JoS wrote:

I didnt derail his argument, he opening post in a thread about trusting the police was saying he alone should decide what sex acts and drugs he puts into his body, then using the analogies of a construction worker beating to death his foreman, as that was somehow representative of police actions in their entirety. Perhaps I did get overzealous in my reply s, but the argument was on wobbly tracks to begin with.

Yes, you did derail it. I said police make mistakes, and you hysterically went off with "Well what if we lived in a world with no police and everyone was killing janitors and blah blah blah". That's derailing; you ask questions irrelevent to my point in the hopes that overblowing everything will make me look "wrong".

Actually my stance on drugs is not hysteria. I personally believe that pot should be de-criminalize for possession (ie no jail time), and be approved for medical use. Growing and selling should be illegal unless you have a prescription or a license to manufacture medicinal or sell it (ie pharmacy).

Your arguments against me HAVE been hysteria, though.

I was trying to keep the discussion on-topic, that is about police officers, and not about drug laws. If you or anyone else wants to have a discussion on drug laws, this is not the thread for it. If you want to discuss police officers roles in upholding laws that some may find wrong, then argue about that, but not about what US drug law should look like.

It's all relevent. I argued that police are oppressive for regulating drugs; you said it's not their faults, men in suits are the ones that make it illegal.

However, once again, Police officers then expand those laws, give harsher punishments, and blatantly lie in anti-drug programs.

Actually police officers don't expand laws, they have no control over this. They can lobby for laws, make suggestions to lawmakers, but no they don't actually create any laws; they follow the laws created by lawmakers. Police also don't hand out punishments, this is the job of the legal system. It's DAs, Judges, and Juries who decide what sentences a criminal may receive (also lawmakers indirectly as they set minimums and maximums for sentencing) the police can suggest a punishment but the ultimate decision of sentencing is out of their hands.

A good area to explore would be perhaps the Nuremberg defense of they were doing as they were told.

I know that's a good area too explore. That's THE REASON I SAID THE EXACT SAME THING, and you told me it's irrelevent because Genocide is different from drug illegalization.

While there certainly is a difference between uphold the legal code and assisting in a genocide, do police really have discretion for choosing which laws to uphold and which to ignore? Or is there really no difference between assisting genocide and enforcing the laws of a country (assuming the laws are "wrong" and not genocide).

If members of the armed forces are not only allowed to disregard orders that are illegal or immoral, and are actually legally OBLIGATED to disregard those orders. If the military, the thing that is fueled by a rigid ability to follow orders, has the right to disregard "bad" orders, then so do police.

Members of the armed forces aren't allowed to disregard a lawful order. This is because order is absolute in the military, same thing goes for the police. And the fact is that individual soldiers aren't accountable for their actions when following a lawful order. Their officers and other commanders, those who issued the orders can be held accountable but not the lower soldiers themselves. The same thing goes for police in this matter, they're following lawful orders, if you're going to hold somebody accountable it should be the law makers, not the police. If you don't believe this is a proper defense the police, the idea that they're following a lawful order, then tell me this: why was it only the higher ups that were charged with crimes at Nuremberg, why not lower level soldiers to?

At 6/26/08 05:17 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

Actually police officers don't expand laws, they have no control over this. They can lobby for laws, make suggestions to lawmakers, but no they don't actually create any laws; they follow the laws created by lawmakers.

There is no law, whatsoever, in the history of existence, that police officers need to preach anti-drug rhetoric to children in schools. Theres ALSO no law saying they need to blatantly lie during said preaching. By doing this, they are expanding the anti-drug movement, and it's impossible to deny that.

Police also don't hand out punishments, this is the job of the legal system. It's DAs, Judges, and Juries who decide what sentences a criminal may receive (also lawmakers indirectly as they set minimums and maximums for sentencing) the police can suggest a punishment but the ultimate decision of sentencing is out of their hands.

No, it isn't. It is up to the Police officers. It is only up to D.A's and courts if the crime is serious enough to warrant the suspect being detained and tried, all other cases are up to the discretion of the officers. A cop is the person that decides if the blunt he just found in your pocket will be confiscated, and you let free, if you will be given a ticket, if you will be arrested and released, or if you will be tried in criminal court.

Members of the armed forces aren't allowed to disregard a lawful order. This is because order is absolute in the military, same thing goes for the police. And the fact is that individual soldiers aren't accountable for their actions when following a lawful order. Their officers and other commanders, those who issued the orders can be held accountable but not the lower soldiers themselves.

If the person making that order has absolutely no authority to do so, the soldier does not have to do it. Likewise, if the action (which was not given under proper authority) leads to something illegal being done, you will be tried.

The same thing goes for police in this matter, they're following lawful orders, if you're going to hold somebody accountable it should be the law makers, not the police. If you don't believe this is a proper defense the police, the idea that they're following a lawful order, then tell me this: why was it only the higher ups that were charged with crimes at Nuremberg, why not lower level soldiers to?

Lower level soldiers wheren't tried at Nuremburg because they where already being tried in the Dachau Trials.

At 6/26/08 07:50 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 6/26/08 05:17 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

Actually police officers don't expand laws, they have no control over this. They can lobby for laws, make suggestions to lawmakers, but no they don't actually create any laws; they follow the laws created by lawmakers.

There is no law, whatsoever, in the history of existence, that police officers need to preach anti-drug rhetoric to children in schools. Theres ALSO no law saying they need to blatantly lie during said preaching. By doing this, they are expanding the anti-drug movement, and it's impossible to deny that.

Part of a police officers job is drug prevention (it's part of their job because it's government policy.) One of the best ways to prevent drug use is to teach kids when they're young about the dangers of drugs. And yeah, I'm sure everything the police say in drug prevention programs are total lies, you know things like meth is bad for you, crack is bad for you it could kill you, such and such many people died from ecstasy last year, yada yada yada. It's all made up crap right?

Police also don't hand out punishments, this is the job of the legal system. It's DAs, Judges, and Juries who decide what sentences a criminal may receive (also lawmakers indirectly as they set minimums and maximums for sentencing) the police can suggest a punishment but the ultimate decision of sentencing is out of their hands.

No, it isn't. It is up to the Police officers. It is only up to D.A's and courts if the crime is serious enough to warrant the suspect being detained and tried, all other cases are up to the discretion of the officers. A cop is the person that decides if the blunt he just found in your pocket will be confiscated, and you let free, if you will be given a ticket, if you will be arrested and released, or if you will be tried in criminal court.

No for somebody to be prosecuted and convicted of a crime it must go through the courts system. The most a police officer can do is fine, and or arrest you. Anything beyond that goes towards the courts system and out of the control of police officers. For any person to be convicted of a crime they must go through the court system. So you're wrong police officers don't decide what your punishment is.

Members of the armed forces aren't allowed to disregard a lawful order. This is because order is absolute in the military, same thing goes for the police. And the fact is that individual soldiers aren't accountable for their actions when following a lawful order. Their officers and other commanders, those who issued the orders can be held accountable but not the lower soldiers themselves.

If the person making that order has absolutely no authority to do so, the soldier does not have to do it. Likewise, if the action (which was not given under proper authority) leads to something illegal being done, you will be tried.

The point is that as long as an order is lawfully given by a commanding officer a soldier is bound to follow that order. The same applies to police officers, the lawmakers create laws and police officers make sure those laws are enforced. So once again if you don't like the laws it's not the fault of the police officers they have no say in the matter, it's because of the law makers.

The same thing goes for police in this matter, they're following lawful orders, if you're going to hold somebody accountable it should be the law makers, not the police. If you don't believe this is a proper defense the police, the idea that they're following a lawful order, then tell me this: why was it only the higher ups that were charged with crimes at Nuremberg, why not lower level soldiers to?

Lower level soldiers wheren't tried at Nuremburg because they where already being tried in the Dachau Trials.

Even at the Dachau Trials, it was still pretty high level leaders who were convicted for their crimes. You have still yet to point out when lower level soldiers were prosecuted, you know the enlisted guys who were just following orders. I wouldn't call commanders of concentration camps low level soldiers.

I wonder how many fat cops died from eating their doughnut drugs.

We should have little kids go to police stations preaching anti-doughnut talks.

The issue is that cops are normal people with guns. When you put an average person in power of course they become more corrupt. Think revolutionary dictators. The reason I would never become a cop is that I know that if I did I would be a corrupted one. Why wouldn't I steal weed from the evidence room. Why wouldn't I let my friends off on speeding tickets. Why wouldn't I go fucking 80 mph on residential streets at 4 am for no reason. I mean what the fuck, I am trying to sleep and you guys are running around everywhere getting your donuts and coffee knowing that you can't get pulled over for speeding. I think the problem is a lack of checks and balances. When you're speeding the only witness is a cop, and they have the benefit of the doubt. There needs to be reform if you ask me.

At 6/27/08 03:54 PM, tritiumnitrate wrote: The issue is that cops are normal people with guns. When you put an average person in power of course they become more corrupt. Think revolutionary dictators. The reason I would never become a cop is that I know that if I did I would be a corrupted one. Why wouldn't I steal weed from the evidence room. Why wouldn't I let my friends off on speeding tickets. Why wouldn't I go fucking 80 mph on residential streets at 4 am for no reason. I mean what the fuck, I am trying to sleep and you guys are running around everywhere getting your donuts and coffee knowing that you can't get pulled over for speeding. I think the problem is a lack of checks and balances. When you're speeding the only witness is a cop, and they have the benefit of the doubt. There needs to be reform if you ask me.

No, cops aren't regular people with guns. They're police officers, they undergo special training, they held to a high standard, and their actions are constantly being looked over by their superiors and watch dog groups. And most people who become cops do so because they want to protect and serve, not because they want a bunch of perks and to get off on speeding tickets. What's more is that police officers aren't immune to the law, if they're going 80 in residential area they will get in trouble. Plus if your caught speeding by a cop it' not just their words against yours, they'll also have your speed recorded on the radar gun.

At 6/26/08 08:12 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

Part of a police officers job is drug prevention (it's part of their job because it's government policy.) One of the best ways to prevent drug use is to teach kids when they're young about the dangers of drugs. And yeah, I'm sure everything the police say in drug prevention programs are total lies, you know things like meth is bad for you, crack is bad for you it could kill you, such and such many people died from ecstasy last year, yada yada yada. It's all made up crap right?

Part of a police officers job is not participating with DARE. Without local police participation, there would be no Anti-Drug programs. THEY choose it.

And yes, it is made up crap for your information. The fact of the matter is that Marijuana IS NOT ADDICTING, and MDMA addiction is not a simple case of "It's addictive" like they say. The fact of the matter is that people DON'T get addicted to drugs the first time. The fact of the matter is that Pot money DOESN'T go to fund terrorists. The fact of the matter is that it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for weed to be laced with LSD, and the fact of the matter is that Methamphetemines AREN'T going to be laced with LSD. And the fact of the matter is that drug dealers AREN'T going to be lacing their drugs with rat poisen.

No for somebody to be prosecuted and convicted of a crime it must go through the courts system. The most a police officer can do is fine, and or arrest you. Anything beyond that goes towards the courts system and out of the control of police officers. For any person to be convicted of a crime they must go through the court system. So you're wrong police officers don't decide what your punishment is.

Instead of talking out of your ass, how about we take a real example; how a POLICE OFFICER recently decided my fate.

I was arrested for underaged possession of alcohol a few months back. The police officer had a choice to give me a ticket or to arrest me. Because I was drunk to the point of being a dick, he CHOSE to have me arrested; that's the first time a cop chose my fate. At the police station, after giving my police report, that officer had the choice to let me go, or to proccess me, including prints and mugshot. He chose to let me go, but my mother actually called and asked them to process me, so they did. At that point, they had a whole slew of options, including sending me to court where a jury would look over my case. He made a CHOICE to not have me sentenced to court, but to sign me up for a peer advocacy group for troubled youths in place of court.

At NO POINT did the legal system punish me, police officers where COMPLETELY IN CHARGE.

The point is that as long as an order is lawfully given by a commanding officer a soldier is bound to follow that order.

And if an officer is overstepping his authority, it's NOT a lawful order.

The same applies to police officers, the lawmakers create laws and police officers make sure those laws are enforced. So once again if you don't like the laws it's not the fault of the police officers they have no say in the matter, it's because of the law makers.

Yes, they do have a say in the matter. They CHOOSE to enforce a law or not. Like how police officers in Berkely reutinely ignore Marijuana possession.

Even at the Dachau Trials, it was still pretty high level leaders who were convicted for their crimes. You have still yet to point out when lower level soldiers were prosecuted, you know the enlisted guys who were just following orders. I wouldn't call commanders of concentration camps low level soldiers.

Again, AT DACHAU. Do some fucking research. The Dachau trials had NOTHING TO DO WITH PEOPLE WHO RAN DACHAU, those people where tried AT NUREMBURG. Please do not base your agument on something by what it sounds like it is.

Dachau Trials (so called because they where held AT DACHAU) where the war crimes trials for lower-ranking members of the German Military. Since Nuremburg only tried senior members of the Military, the government, and the German Economy, Dachau was implemented, amoungst other trials, to get the small fries; this includes the privates who slaughtered surrendered U.S forces at Malmedy (lol Bill Reilly), and nine German soldiers who dressed up in American Uniforms.

At 6/26/08 04:39 PM, Earfetish wrote: The police aren't looking out for the populace, they're looking out for the state. Money crimes are resolved with investigation and violent crimes or robberies of a dwelling are ignored. The drug and hooker laws are more examples of the state exerting social control via the police.

This is all true; it's the dirty little secret law enforcement managers couldn't hide even if they wanted to try.

At 6/26/08 11:47 AM, Elfer wrote: People don't trust cops because they are agents of a system that they don't trust. Since the officers are bound to enforce the laws of that organization, it is not logical for a citizen to completely separate the agent from the agency.

I couldn't have put it better, or more accurately.

I think it's anti-police music (ie most rap songs, and "fuck the man" rock) that spread the whole "cops r scum" message. They have "fuck the police" lyrics and young people take this in.

Hence they see the police not as people who are there to help, but rather people who want to "beat them down" because they're "playa haters". Young kids who have no reason to hate the police are being tainted by this shit.

At 6/28/08 12:53 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: I think it's anti-police music (ie most rap songs, and "fuck the man" rock) that spread the whole "cops r scum" message. They have "fuck the police" lyrics and young people take this in.

Hang on...POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!! POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!!

Hence they see the police not as people who are there to help, but rather people who want to "beat them down" because they're "playa haters". Young kids who have no reason to hate the police are being tainted by this shit.

As opposed to in the UK, where we're indoctrinated with the idea that they're here to help, when in fact they're institutionally racist, trigger happy (as in the Metropolitan Police), and always willing to cover each others' ass when it comes to any inquiry about them being institutionally racist and/or trigger happy.

At 6/28/08 01:32 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 6/28/08 12:53 PM, flashplayer5 wrote: I think it's anti-police music (ie most rap songs, and "fuck the man" rock) that spread the whole "cops r scum" message. They have "fuck the police" lyrics and young people take this in.

Hang on...POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!! POLITICS IN THE LOUNGE!!!

Whoops, clicked in the wrong topic and didn't notice. Errm, the second part stil lstands.

flashplayer5: "I think it's anti-police music (ie most rap songs, and 'fuck the man' rock) that spread the whole 'cops r scum' message."

Nah. I'm so old I remember Jack Webb's non-stop apologetics for the police on Dragnet, which was basically just a piece of shameless propaganda that drilled home the idea "POLICE = GOOD" every week. I'm so old, I remember the Kennedy assassination, and how mad people were that the Dallas Police fucked up. I'm so old, I remember watching the Beatles first appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show.

I'm old, and the police weren't popular in the 'sixties either, long before (c)rap was a gleam in Grandmaster Flash's eye.

As I've said repeatedly, want to go a long way toward ending that? End the War On (some) Drugs. Now.
______

P.S.: I used the term "(c)rap" somewhat facetiously. I've actually come to appreciate rap as righteously angry street poetry, but it'll never be music to my ears.

I'm old.

Nick la police ... french i think ... well according to a copy of socialist worker it is O_o oh god ...

How not to be trustful of the police.

So, they make him spread eagle with a gun pointed at him, handcuff him and search his bag, drag him down the station...then realise he wasn't the right guy? Still, at least he didn't get 11 hollow points in the face.

On the subject of De Menezes, all 44 officers involved in the trial will be granted anonymity. Why?

Meanwhile, locally the police are proving to be half-assed on crime, half-assed on the causes of crime when 40+ officers walk/drive around the local area so they cxan be seen to be acting on knife crime - in the areas without knife crime. So, not only could you probably rob a bank as most of the constabulary were out trying to look important and/or useful, the fact is they didn't go to the hotspots - probably for fear of being stabbed.

That and they weren't around when some fucker tried to punt a football through the window at work, even though they were around the fucking corner...

At 7/9/08 09:50 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: How not to be trustful of the police.

So, they make him spread eagle with a gun pointed at him, handcuff him and search his bag, drag him down the station...then realise he wasn't the right guy? Still, at least he didn't get 11 hollow points in the face.

Thank God it didn't happen in London otherwise *bang, bang*.

On the subject of De Menezes, all 44 officers involved in the trial will be granted anonymity. Why?

Meanwhile, locally the police are proving to be half-assed on crime, half-assed on the causes of crime when 40+ officers walk/drive around the local area so they cxan be seen to be acting on knife crime - in the areas without knife crime. So, not only could you probably rob a bank as most of the constabulary were out trying to look important and/or useful, the fact is they didn't go to the hotspots - probably for fear of being stabbed.

The police are either too light or too heavy when it comes to crime. When my brother was a PCSO (he quit, thank God), He was chasing a man with 10 police officers and a couple of vehicles and the man was caught and my brother asked the police offers if he was accused of committing a serious offence, like murder and he found that the man stole clothes from M&S.

That and they weren't around when some fucker tried to punt a football through the window at work, even though they were around the fucking corner...

I never see a police officer on the beat. I was nearly robbed at the Cutty Sark, a freaking tourist attraction and there no police for miles. You would think that the police would patrol the streets. My experience wasn't compared to others but they should do their fucking job.

So are you saying if someone runs from the police for a minor crime the police should not give chase?

If someone is running from the police thee is a reason, often more serious then the original offense. People getting pulled over for minor traffic violations often run because they have a warrant for their arrest or something else more serious than the traffic offense. Most people do not run from the police for running a stop sign.

At 7/9/08 11:59 AM, JoS wrote: So are you saying if someone runs from the police for a minor crime the police should not give chase?

No, they should but 10 police officers is more than enough to apprehend a suspected shoplifter. If somebody committed criminal damage, I doubt they would have done shit.

If someone is running from the police thee is a reason, often more serious then the original offense. People getting pulled over for minor traffic violations often run because they have a warrant for their arrest or something else more serious than the traffic offense. Most people do not run from the police for running a stop sign.

Except there was no reason. He didn't commit a serious crime that called for a heavy handed police response. I am not sure what happened that day but he probably ran because o fthe huge presence of the police.

If a police officer is corrupt he or she has betrayed his community that he was suppose to have served and make better. He is only human prone to a wide range of imperfections. For a cop to be flawless in his or her judgement, would be to describe Officer Alex Murphey of the Detroit Police. (Robocop).

There are some cops who are better and more professional than others. There are some cops who don't excercise proper judgement, and allow fear to influence judgement. The officer who patrols a high crime neighborhood, may see color as a factor of crime, or drugs as a factor of crime.

And thus the judgement of an officer may be very flawed. Or perhaps an officer may just be arresting say an Asian because the Asian is engaged in some bad shit. Or the Cop may just be taking pleasure that he caught a goody two shoes Asian kid.

Again it's subjective to the prejudices or lack of with the cop.

They look at who looks out of place in a situation. If you are patrolling a poor, predominately black neighborhood and see a white man in a business suit, I would want to talk with that white man and see what he is doing there. If I saw a white person though who was dressed like he belongs in that community then I probably wouldn't look twice. If I saw a black man in a power suit in an upper-class neighborhood I wouldn't think too much about it, but if I saw some white kid who clearly didn't belong in that area I may be curious again.

At 7/10/08 11:20 AM, ThePretenders wrote: No, they should but 10 police officers is more than enough to apprehend a suspected shoplifter. If somebody committed criminal damage, I doubt they would have done shit.

Not necessarily. He is running, so there is a possibility he is going to be violent, or possibly armed. Plus, the more officers, the less of a chance of him getting away.

Also to the point if they had a warrant they wouldn't do shit, you make the assumption crime is rational. They may or may nto know they have warrants out. People commit crimes all the time when they are wanted for warrants, from traffic violations to assault to robbery.

True story, there was a man wanted for murder in the US, he fled to Mexico. Years later he came to Canada on vacation and was arrested at the border. If you were wanted for murder in the US would you fly to Canada on vacation on your own passport?

Except there was no reason. He didn't commit a serious crime that called for a heavy handed police response. I am not sure what happened that day but he probably ran because o fthe huge presence of the police.

How do the officers know he hasn't committed a serious offense in the past and that is why he is running? How do they know he doesn't have a gun? How do they know he isn't on drugs? Sorry that the officers were thinking of theirs and the public's safety first?

At 7/10/08 12:26 PM, JoS wrote: They look at who looks out of place in a situation. If you are patrolling a poor, predominately black neighborhood and see a white man in a business suit, I would want to talk with that white man and see what he is doing there.

Does this extend to harrassing minorities in predominately white neighborhoods, based solely on their ethnic make-up? This is the heart profiling, and the courts have ruled it's not only dangerously close to outright prejudice, it's social discrimination in the name of the law; unconstitional.

If I saw a white person though who was dressed like he belongs in that community then I probably wouldn't look twice.

Like gang membership? I don't understand what you mean, "dressed like he belongs". That's sounds elitist to the point of bigotry. Am I wrong?

At 7/10/08 07:45 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Does this extend to harrassing minorities in predominately white neighborhoods, based solely on their ethnic make-up? This is the heart profiling, and the courts have ruled it's not only dangerously close to outright prejudice, it's social discrimination in the name of the law; unconstitional.

If you notice I did not state merely based on race, other factors are considered, such as the way the person is dressed, their behavior, time of day, day of the week, and its applied equally to all races. Ethnic group only makes a small portion of that, because everything else being the same I would still want to talk to the white kid in the upperclass neighborhood that looks like he just rolled out of the trailer park.

I not once said based solely upon their race, you are making up words and putting them in my mouth. You are looking for who doesn't belong there, race is only one factor to take into consideration. And it takes more than one thing to make someone look out of place. A white person in an almost entirely black area will probably grab my attention for a few moments while I gather other information by looking. Are you going to tell me it is wrong for a police officer to LOOK a few seconds more at a person who ethnically is different than the vast majority of people around him?

And just to be clear so you don't try and twist my words again, by look I mean look and observe, not beat with a billy club or stop and ask them for ID, merely observe their appearance, behavior etc.

Like gang membership? I don't understand what you mean, "dressed like he belongs". That's sounds elitist to the point of bigotry. Am I wrong?

No, if someone is wearing a three piece suit at 2pm in the afternoon in 8 mile I am going to be curious. If I see a person in the in an upperclass looking like she just came from a tailer park , she wold grab my attention. If I see a person come off a flight with a baseball hat pulled down as far as possible over their head (not brim covering face, the hat literally pulled as far onto the head as possible) I would be interested. If I see someone wearing something inappropriate on not the norm for the setting and situation, I would want to take a closer look. If I see a 18 year old wandering around a retirement community at night.... get my drift.

Its situational based, what may be normal in one situation is not normal in another. Its difficult to explain, but you know it when you see it. I am sure you haev been somewhere sometime and thought to yourself that person looks out of place, or wondered what they were doing there. Or you really didn't think about it bu noticed.

Perhaps they need assistance, they are lost, injured, or in some other kind of distress. Just because a police officer wants to talk to you does not mean your in trouble, its their job to help you when you are in trouble. But how can they know if your in distress if you can't approach them?

I have been stopped by the police wlaking home at night from the abr, a question or two and your on your way.

At 7/9/08 11:59 AM, JoS wrote: So are you saying if someone runs from the police for a minor crime the police should not give chase?

They shouldn't over-respond to this degree - ten officer chasing somebody for shoplifting cannot feasibly be justified, as it is a waste of resources. Two should be more than enough to take care of the situation.

If someone is running from the police thee is a reason, often more serious then the original offense. People getting pulled over for minor traffic violations often run because they have a warrant for their arrest or something else more serious than the traffic offense. Most people do not run from the police for running a stop sign.

It depends - if said person was from an area where it is indoctrinated into you that the police are after you no matter what (most likely a council estate), they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

That could also be linked to a recent incident in my neck of the woods - an officer was attacked by a 15 year old girl when he asked her to pick up litter she dropped, and a few other people saw what was happening and joined in.

So, to sum up: a solitary officer (when they should always patrol in pairs) got beaten up by a 15-year old girl, before some bystanders saw it as an opportunity to get in a few free kicks on a local officer. In the middle of the afternoon.

No wonder I've altered the Wikipedia entry to say Croydon's been twinned with Pripyat...

At 6/22/08 09:57 PM, n64kid wrote: 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?

Who would vote teacher? Hmmm, let's see, considering how they teach us in proven effective methods to raise our awareness of the world around us and try to infuse us with important knowledge in order to perform well and productively in society, maybe people who believe a proper education is imperative to a stable community would vote for them?

At 7/23/08 10:05 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: They shouldn't over-respond to this degree - ten officer chasing somebody for shoplifting cannot feasibly be justified, as it is a waste of resources. Two should be more than enough to take care of the situation.

It is the unknown, maybe the individual has a gun, maybe he has some friends he is running to, maybe he is wanted and considered armed and dangerous. YOu want back up to help catch him, and also to find him if he gives the slip. In some areas it is a felony to flee the police.

It depends - if said person was from an area where it is indoctrinated into you that the police are after you no matter what (most likely a council estate), they are more likely to believe they will be fitted up for any crime going.

Irrelevant, you still are required to obey a police officers instructions. Besides, if you are a shop lifter running, you know you have done something wrong already, you are not worried about being framed, you know you broke the law and you know exactly why you are being chased.

So, to sum up: a solitary officer (when they should always patrol in pairs) got beaten up by a 15-year old girl, before some bystanders saw it as an opportunity to get in a few free kicks on a local officer. In the middle of the afternoon.

I read you link, it actually says that there were two unarmed police officers who were beat up, one 34 years old and one 29. So they were patrolling in pairs.

So what about the concept that instituting a police force automatically gives the assumption that you NEED to be watched. That you aren't good enough to survive on your own.

I think that's where a lot of mistrust comes from.

Because, to a truly logical person, the way the police force is organized is completely inefficient and oppressive.

At least from my perspective.

A police force is merely the third party prescribed to dispense justice in the form of politicized "needs" instituted by our elected officials under the ultimate legal text of the US Constitution.

People thses days think that they can get away for doing anything and the crap that they give to the police. i mean they go throgh all the shit morons give to them and yet they keep on going. i say people should give more respect to the police because they are working 24/7 to protect and help people.

Not every police officer is fucking captain america.