[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A serious question.... (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/16/2014 5:06:59 PM EDT
|
About POLICE
So im a fairly new member here and have been reading numerous posts about the Police lately so I thought I would ask GD a serious question. What is GD's ideal role for Police? I will state up front that I am a Police Officer so I have my own opinions. But I get the feeling that most of GD would prefer that Police not exist or at most just respond when called for. Is this true or do you see the need for pro active policing that actively searches for the criminal element? I cant imagine that GD would be in favor of pro active policing since there are constant threads about why cops need to search cars, consent, illegal search and seizure, etc. But then when an Officer like Darren Wilson gets into a mess of a media ran witch hunt, all of GD comes in to take his side. Not saying either is right just curious what most people would like to see happen if they could change the way U.S. Police conducted business. I ask this because I'm smart enough to know that my opinions and ideas are biased. Maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe being open minded could change the way I conduct business and interact with members of my community. GO!!! |
| The problem with policing in the United States is not an individual problem, but an institutional one. Not only do we want you to stop, prevent, and deter crimes of violence and property crimes, we also demand you stop consensual crimes of prostitution and drug use. Stopping consensual crimes is nigh impossible without a police state, so a police state begins arising to do what society asks you to do. We then decry the rise of the police state while simultaneously demanding you continue your war on consensual crimes. Something for you to think about, but not something you can affect at your level. Stay safe out there, and better to lose your career than your life. |
After 36 years all I can tell ya if today was my first day I would quit. Respect for LE is in the toilet, not worth the pay offered. I have said for years LE went wrong when they started this zero tolerance crap. Pro active policing will get you in trouble faster than any other aspect.
|
|
Serious question?
You won't get a serious answer. Fact is, nobody wants police to enforce every single statute under the law to the fullest extent possible, to the letter, exactly as written. They want police to enforce the law on people they disagree with, and to then make an exception for themselves. The police are in the middle just trying to do the job and avoid the bullshit. The way it works out is that most laws on the books are worthless and idiotic because they can't be enforced - either because of public opinion/support or a lack of resources. But yet every time there's a problem, we demand more laws. Don't even get into the political angle of how the left and the right want to use the police against each other. That's a fucking shitfest. Bottom line? It's a thankless job, but the extra privileges generally outweigh the extra bullshit, and you know what you're getting into when you join. I say it's a wash. |
They should propose new "Public Safety" laws that Progressives can implement to control and subdue the population!!
etc. |
|
Quoted:
About POLICE So im a fairly new member here and have been reading numerous posts about the Police lately so I thought I would ask GD a serious question. What is GD's ideal role for Police? I will state up front that I am a Police Officer so I have my own opinions. But I get the feeling that most of GD would prefer that Police not exist or at most just respond when called for. Is this true or do you see the need for pro active policing that actively searches for the criminal element? I cant imagine that GD would be in favor of pro active policing since there are constant threads about why cops need to search cars, consent, illegal search and seizure, etc. But then when an Officer like Darren Wilson gets into a mess of a media ran witch hunt, all of GD comes in to take his side. Not saying either is right just curious what most people would like to see happen if they could change the way U.S. Police conducted business. I ask this because I'm smart enough to know that my opinions and ideas are biased. Maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe being open minded could change the way I conduct business and interact with members of my community. GO!!! this! I am not a cop hater. I like and appreciate them. I think this is what gd would want. |
|
Not trying to just stir the shit...but if i understand what most of you are saying is that GD is very similar to a liberal in the sense that they want Police to focus on the group of people that they disagree with. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black situation...no?
Find the pimps, drug dealers, thieves, etc. Just dont ask to search any cars. |
| But the idea of pro active policing is to protect the community from pimps, dealers, chomos, etc. Yet all of GD just wants them to quit traffic stop, consensual encounters, asking questions , etc. How are police supposed to protect or serve if they only show up after the fact? Would GD just prefer a dept full of detectives that follow up and build cases that go to the prosecutor for a warrant request? While in the meantime the suspect is running free. |
|
Quoted:
But the idea of pro active policing is to protect the community from pimps, dealers, chomos, etc. Yet all of GD just wants them to quit traffic stop, consensual encounters, asking questions , etc. How are police supposed to protect or serve if they only show up after the fact? Would GD just prefer a dept full of detectives that follow up and build cases that go to the prosecutor for a warrant request? While in the meantime the suspect is running free. It's just about impossible to maintain a hard line on civil liberties, while insisting that consensual behavior be vigorously prosecuted. Rock and a hard place. You're between them. |
|
Quoted: But the idea of pro active policing is to protect the community from pimps, dealers, chomos, etc. Yet all of GD just wants them to quit traffic stop, consensual encounters, asking questions , etc. How are police supposed to protect or serve if they only show up after the fact? Would GD just prefer a dept full of detectives that follow up and build cases that go to the prosecutor for a warrant request? While in the meantime the suspect is running free. Pimps and dealers are salesmen providing a product or service that is wanted by the same public that has outlawed those products & services. Child molestation is clearly not a consensual crime, but the standard of innocent 'til proven guilty does not apply, and women in divorce cases are notorious for alleging abuse by their future ex-husband. But perjury in such cases is rarely prosecuted. Here's the question - do you really believe that drug users are committing a terrible crime by making themselves happy for a period of time? |
|
I have no beef with Police in General. I just have issues with my local Police. I have had them come into my office and tell me that they are selling drugs out of the house behind me. I say why not do something and their reply is that is the drug units job. I got a call from the local sheriff and he wanted me to know that he was raiding a business located in a building I own. They busted a couple of thugs for selling crack. I questioned one of the police officers that came in about it and he said he had seen alot of activity there in the wee hours of the mornings but it wasn't his job to check to see what was going on. It pisses the shit out of me that the sheriffs office has to come into the city to make drug busts while the city pd do nothing. |
|
Quoted:
About POLICE So im a fairly new member here and have been reading numerous posts about the Police lately so I thought I would ask GD a serious question. What is GD's ideal role for Police? I will state up front that I am a Police Officer so I have my own opinions. But I get the feeling that most of GD would prefer that Police not exist or at most just respond when called for. Is this true or do you see the need for pro active policing that actively searches for the criminal element? I cant imagine that GD would be in favor of pro active policing since there are constant threads about why cops need to search cars, consent, illegal search and seizure, etc. But then when an Officer like Darren Wilson gets into a mess of a media ran witch hunt, all of GD comes in to take his side. Not saying either is right just curious what most people would like to see happen if they could change the way U.S. Police conducted business. I ask this because I'm smart enough to know that my opinions and ideas are biased. Maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe being open minded could change the way I conduct business and interact with members of my community. GO!!! I would have no problem with police searching my car, my home, or anything else I owned if I'd assaulted an officer and got ventilated for it. And what is your definition of pro-active policing? |
|
Quoted:
About POLICE So im a fairly new member here and have been reading numerous posts about the Police lately so I thought I would ask GD a serious question. What is GD's ideal role for Police? I will state up front that I am a Police Officer so I have my own opinions. But I get the feeling that most of GD would prefer that Police not exist or at most just respond when called for. Is this true or do you see the need for pro active policing that actively searches for the criminal element? I cant imagine that GD would be in favor of pro active policing since there are constant threads about why cops need to search cars, consent, illegal search and seizure, etc. But then when an Officer like Darren Wilson gets into a mess of a media ran witch hunt, all of GD comes in to take his side. Not saying either is right just curious what most people would like to see happen if they could change the way U.S. Police conducted business. I ask this because I'm smart enough to know that my opinions and ideas are biased. Maybe I'm missing something here. Maybe being open minded could change the way I conduct business and interact with members of my community. GO!!! First and foremost, police need to realize that being a policeman IS A JOB! They aren't military so it's ridiculous for them to refer to non police as "civilians." YOU'RE a civilian too. You can quit your job and start up a bowling alley if you wanted to at any time. Once you accept that, everything else will fall into place. |
|
Quoted:
But the idea of pro active policing is to protect the community from pimps, dealers, chomos, etc. Yet all of GD just wants them to quit traffic stop, consensual encounters, asking questions , etc. How are police supposed to protect or serve if they only show up after the fact? Would GD just prefer a dept full of detectives that follow up and build cases that go to the prosecutor for a warrant request? While in the meantime the suspect is running free. Are you suggesting going after people if they 'might' do something? Are you suggesting that taking the time to build a case for a warrant, and/or prosecution is a waste of time? That any 'suspect' should be denied their freedom and incarcerated? If so, how does that square with privacy rights and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty? |
|
Quoted:
The problem with policing in the United States is not an individual problem, but an institutional one. Not only do we want you to stop, prevent, and deter crimes of violence and property crimes, we also demand you stop consensual crimes of prostitution and drug use. Stopping consensual crimes is nigh impossible without a police state, so a police state begins arising to do what society asks you to do. We then decry the rise of the police state while simultaneously demanding you continue your war on consensual crimes. Something for you to think about, but not something you can affect at your level. Stay safe out there, and better to lose your career than your life. +1 |
|
Quoted:
Not trying to just stir the shit...but if i understand what most of you are saying is that GD is very similar to a liberal in the sense that they want Police to focus on the group of people that they disagree with. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black situation...no? Find the pimps, drug dealers, thieves, etc. Just dont ask to search any cars. Nope, leave the pimps and drug dealers the hell alone. |
|
Quoted:
It's so cliche, but "protect and serve" is the perfect motto for a policeman and department. Not "Try and find a reason to put you in jail" That meanning doesn't mean the same thing as when I was a kid. Reminds me of the thread would you let the police search your vehicle? The poster Dawn was getting flamed but back before Magruf I'd let them search my vehicle. Not so much now. |
|
Quoted:
+1 Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem with policing in the United States is not an individual problem, but an institutional one. Not only do we want you to stop, prevent, and deter crimes of violence and property crimes, we also demand you stop consensual crimes of prostitution and drug use. Stopping consensual crimes is nigh impossible without a police state, so a police state begins arising to do what society asks you to do. We then decry the rise of the police state while simultaneously demanding you continue your war on consensual crimes. Something for you to think about, but not something you can affect at your level. Stay safe out there, and better to lose your career than your life. +1 Part in bold with the caveat that consensual crimes does not include "minors involved" |
|
Quoted: Pretty much this. Also, many in GD have that juvenile mindset of, "You can't tell me what to do!" Quoted: Quoted: Asking this question in GD... You're gonna get GD answers. To make it easy... GD wants police to police other people and not themselves. Pretty much this. Also, many in GD have that juvenile mindset of, "You can't tell me what to do!" do not |
|
Quoted:
If somebody is doing the speed limit in the left lane, you have my permission to PIT him into the wall. Quoted:
If somebody is doing the speed limit in the left lane, you have my permission to PIT him into the wall. Quoted:
Police need to stop fucking with me when I'm driving. The conflict begins. |
|
Quoted:
do not Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Asking this question in GD... You're gonna get GD answers. To make it easy... GD wants police to police other people and not themselves. Pretty much this. Also, many in GD have that juvenile mindset of, "You can't tell me what to do!" do not 
|
|
Police need to understand that the huge overwhelming majority of the population are law abiding (in the grand scheme of things) folks just trying to make it through life.
It's unfortunate that they are mostly blind to this because they deal with scum much of the time. Bullshit malum prohibitum laws are just that - Bullshit. Also, far too many people rely on government to solve their problems instead of dealing with it themselves, thus encouraging nannystatism. Personally I've never 'needed' a LEO to do anything for me, except to take a report that the insurance company required. |
|
Quoted:
The conflict begins. Quoted:
Quoted:
If somebody is doing the speed limit in the left lane, you have my permission to PIT him into the wall. Quoted:
Police need to stop fucking with me when I'm driving. The conflict begins. There are no right answers. He's damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. 
|
|
Quoted:
But the idea of pro active policing is to protect the community from pimps, dealers, chomos, etc. Yet all of GD just wants them to quit traffic stop, consensual encounters, asking questions , etc. How are police supposed to protect or serve if they only show up after the fact? Would GD just prefer a dept full of detectives that follow up and build cases that go to the prosecutor for a warrant request? While in the meantime the suspect is running free. You're getting GD answers, as predicted, but here's my attempt at a serious answer to your serious question. In a nutshell, the part is blue is what a police force based on individual rights should be. A person you suspect of a crime still possesses the same inalienable rights as the rest of us, and no power granted or wielded by government can change that. This means that if I, as a private citizen, cannot justifiably deprive that person of the exercise of his rights, than neither can you, as an agent of the government. If we are going to say that the rights of the individual are important (and they are), then they must be held inviolate, not chipped away at every turn in the name of expediency or convenience. Our current system has become one in which a single man (the police officer) holds the power to inflict severe physical, financial, and reputational harm to just about anyone he comes into contact with, based solely on his decision alone, and with no ability for the subject of his attention to challenge that decision or prevent the harm from occurring. "You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" really is a sickening and terrible concept if you think about its implications. In actuality, the arresting officer is handing out punishment to a person who is only accused of a crime, prior to any actual finding of guilt. We have a better mechanism for determining guilt and punishing criminals, and that is the jury trial. Fundamentally, no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property unless by the decision of a jury (not the government), having been afforded the ability to challenge the accusation, confront his accuser, bring evidence in his defense, etc., which is collectively known as due process of law. So, yes - a police force should be filled with full-time investigators who gather evidence of particular crimes and build a case to present for prosecution. They should not be using their authority to make life difficult for people they dislike, or inflict harm on someone they (and only they) have decided probably committed a crime. And yep, that means that the suspect is "running free." But better that than an innocent man be caught up, whether by mistake or by malice. Such is the nature of preeminent individual rights. |
|
Quoted:
Pimps and dealers are salesmen providing a product or service that is wanted by the same public that has outlawed those products & services. Child molestation is clearly not a consensual crime, but the standard of innocent 'til proven guilty does not apply, and women in divorce cases are notorious for alleging abuse by their future ex-husband. But perjury in such cases is rarely prosecuted. Here's the question - do you really believe that drug users are committing a terrible crime by making themselves happy for a period of time? Quoted:
Quoted: But the idea of pro active policing is to protect the community from pimps, dealers, chomos, etc. Yet all of GD just wants them to quit traffic stop, consensual encounters, asking questions , etc. How are police supposed to protect or serve if they only show up after the fact? Would GD just prefer a dept full of detectives that follow up and build cases that go to the prosecutor for a warrant request? While in the meantime the suspect is running free. Pimps and dealers are salesmen providing a product or service that is wanted by the same public that has outlawed those products & services. Child molestation is clearly not a consensual crime, but the standard of innocent 'til proven guilty does not apply, and women in divorce cases are notorious for alleging abuse by their future ex-husband. But perjury in such cases is rarely prosecuted. Here's the question - do you really believe that drug users are committing a terrible crime by making themselves happy for a period of time? On that last sentence. Ask yourself that same question after your lawn mower, A/C compressor and all the copper, or any number of other things that can be pawned or sold is stolen from you. The theft incurred at the cost of drug use is unbelievable. Every metal thief I have ever caught has been a dope head. Who pays for that in the end. Not digging on you, this is just the facts of life. Over all there are some good answers in here. There are an insane number of laws on the books. You want the police to be closer to the neighborhoods, great, I'm all for that now let me do that. Part of the problem lies with all these so-called experts pushing these new fangled crime initiative down our throats and using only stats to measure true effectiveness. There is no measure for prevention. Bottom line is let me police the way the community I serve wants me to police and quit with the anti-police college studies doing your thinking for you. MPD165 |
| Hey...i buy that. I really do. And thank you for an educated and well articulated response. The only thing i disagree with is crimes that are witnessed by police or the public. I do believe that when a crime is commited in the presence of an Officer that the public has placed their trust in an officer to act in accordance with the law. And that to me is the flaw in your previously stated system. If i see you speeding, you get a ticket. If i see you smoking a J, you go to jail. If another citizen sees you hit your wife, you should go to jail. But if no one saw you do it then yes we get a warrant if the evidence allows us. And to me that is the system we have today. I dont see where letting a guy go after i witnessed him commit a crime does anybody any good. The public trusts and expects me to act to preserve the fabric of a community. |
|
Quoted: If somebody is doing the speed limit in the left lane, you have my permission to PIT him into the wall. Then what is the purpose of a speed limit? Seriously. Not trying to get into a long argument or a urinary olympics, but I have always wondered why most of GD wants the people that follow this law to be punished. |
|
Quoted:
Hey...i buy that. I really do. And thank you for an educated and well articulated response. The only thing i disagree with is crimes that are witnessed by police or the public. I do believe that when a crime is commited in the presence of an Officer that the public has placed their trust in an officer to act in accordance with the law. And that to me is the flaw in your previously stated system. If i see you speeding, you get a ticket. If i see you smoking a J, you go to jail. If another citizen sees you hit your wife, you should go to jail. But if no one saw you do it then yes we get a warrant if the evidence allows us. And to me that is the system we have today. I dont see where letting a guy go after i witnessed him commit a crime does anybody any good. The public trusts and expects me to act to preserve the fabric of a community. At what level of "crime" do you let a guy off? Discretion and all. The problem we have today is that no police officer, or lawyer, or citizen, knows ALL the laws pertaining to them at any given time. Too many have been added for anybody to keep up. The number of laws in the US is indeterminate i.e. uncountable. Stick to the 10 commandments enforcement (well, maybe not the adultry one..) and we'd be fine. There IS a huge lack of detective work. The number of unsolved murders is skyrocketing. Property crimes are hardly investigated at all. That is the sad part. |