Cops need to be taught their priority is to protect citizens even when they are being bad.

Our Cops seem to feel entitled to bring force against us. This is just wrong. If your not doing something that is dangerous, or destructive they need to be patient with people who don't immediately respond to their commands even if I am breaking the law if my actions are not hurting anyone or dangerous. Face it their are many cops out there (not all for sure) maybe a minority of them that became cops so they can get a power trip. Those Cops that act in power trip mode or respond emotionally rather than intelligently and hurt civilians even ones breaking the law, need to be punished. Force should only be used when someone is doing something that may hurt someone or damage property and only then should be used to stop those actions.

Cops should not be ordering people to do anything. There is nothing wrong with starving people out. You don't always have to head rush people and forcefully confront non violent uncooperative civilians.

Cops first and main job should be to protect people from harm and not stop crime or disobedience. They need to teach them that and renew that teaching quarterly and punish cops who get out of line each and every time.

a reply to: Xeven

Looking back at America, cops used to be a lot more patient when dealing with "disobedience" like Eric Gardner. What was the initial call about? Selling cigarettes on the corner? What a crime…

The crime began when the cops showed up in force. I bet the first cop on scene didn't even approach Eric, just keyed the mic and said we need an army, this dudes big. Then they all approached at once… now the man feels threatened. If one person had approached Eric and say, Now, we got a report you are selling cigarettes and thats a major crime (lol) so no problem take it somewhere else. If I have to come back you are going to get a citation and pay a fine and or a warrant and you don't want that.

Be patient go slow, no mob of threatening police with all their tasers out and batons, surrounding him. Of course he reacted to that…

"Don't touch me!" Now the cops got their excuse to be as impatient as they all seem to be these days.

More Andy Griffiths, less Barney Fifes....

a reply to: kosmicjack

Totally agree with that. "No Country For Old Men" comes to mind, too. Those good ol boys just amazed at the world they find themselves in today.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xeven

Looking back at America, cops used to be a lot more patient when dealing with "disobedience" like Eric Gardner. What was the initial call about? Selling cigarettes on the corner? What a crime…

The crime began when the cops showed up in force. I bet the first cop on scene didn't even approach Eric, just keyed the mic and said we need an army, this dudes big. Then they all approached at once… now the man feels threatened. If one person had approached Eric and say, Now, we got a report you are selling cigarettes and thats a major crime (lol) so no problem take it somewhere else. If I have to come back you are going to get a citation and pay a fine and or a warrant and you don't want that.

Be patient go slow, no mob of threatening police with all their tasers out and batons, surrounding him. Of course he reacted to that…

"Don't touch me!" Now the cops got their excuse to be as impatient as they all seem to be these days.

Or hey tell the guy to stop selling cigarettes, walk on by and go solve some real crimes?

Dude was trying to feed his family. The only crime here was committed by law enforcement.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
More Andy Griffiths, less Barney Fifes....

Andy used common sense and talking to solve problems.
The problem today is the absolutely black and white/no tolerance way of handling situations, which is dangerous since most things are in the gray.
The problem is also the fact that citations and misdemeanors are all a money racket. That's probably why there is no tolerance -- gotta make that money. Have you ever been in a little trouble and looked at the receipt of your fine and seen all the agencies and people that are getting a cut of your money? Consider getting popped for low level crimes as random forced taxation. There is no desire to fight crime. The cops are there to make money for local and state government by hassling poor people who don't have the money.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
More Andy Griffiths, less Barney Fifes....

That would be more appropriate in a world of drunken Otis's. Unfortunately Otis is gone and we have Bonnie and Clyde's.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Pretty sure the vast, vast majority of citizen/LEO interactions are fairly mundane and could benefit more from a touch of humanity and rationale rather than brute force.

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace

originally posted by: kosmicjack
More Andy Griffiths, less Barney Fifes....

Andy used common sense and talking to solve problems.
The problem today is the absolutely black and white/no tolerance way of handling situations, which is dangerous since most things are in the gray.
The problem is also the fact that citations and misdemeanors are all a money racket. That's probably why there is no tolerance -- gotta make that money. Have you ever been in a little trouble and looked at the receipt of your fine and seen all the agencies and people that are getting a cut of your money? Consider getting popped for low level crimes as random forced taxation. There is no desire to fight crime. The cops are there to make money for local and state government by hassling poor people who don't have the money.

Kind of a self defeating argument there. Cops are making money for the government by hassling people who don't have money? How is that making money for the government then? Not sure where you live but in my state, just about half of court fees and costs are never paid. All that happens is the person MAY get a suspended license and MAY get their fees sent to a collection agency. More likely, nothing will happen at all.

The OP says there's nothing wrong with starving people out. As another poster pointed out, the world is gray. Starving people out would be great if, say, nobody needed to access a road that was being taken up by protesters, and everybody could just stand around endlessly until the protesters got sleepy and left on their own. The problem is that very rarely do protesters pick roads that nobody needs to use, or apply for permits to use those roads for protest. Ergo, eventually cops have to order people to disperse, people don't want to, and things happen. Do some cops jump the gun? Absolutely. Do things get carried away? Absolutely. Won't dispute that. There's a good number of d-bags with a badge, and I won't even begin to debate that with anybody.

It's not your right to inflict your desire to do whatever you want to do, as long as it's not dangerous or violent, on me. If you wanna protest on a major road, that's all well and good but you need to recognize that other people may need that road, and you don't get to "own" it until you get bored.

So long as a person do not pose a danger to the police or the public, all efforts must be made by the police to not encroach on that person's Rights while dealing with the situation. If the police overstep that bound, he/she becomes the law breaker and a traitor to the Constitution he/she swore to protect. However, if the person becomes a danger to the police or the public, all bets are off.

a reply to: kosmicjack


That's true, but don't forget common sense. If Mike brown moved to the sidewalk he would probably still be alive. Seems like a small thing.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Pretty sure the vast, vast majority of citizen/LEO interactions are fairly mundane and could benefit more from a touch of humanity and rationale rather than brute force.

I would say people don't hear about the vast majority of police/community interactions, period. It doesn't sell ad space or air time. Normal, boring interactions don't do anything for the media. "Good" interactions hardly get any mention, unless something happened shortly afterward and it's a side-bit for the story. "Bad" interactions sell papers, sell commercials, get web hits, and get banner ads clicked on. If it bleeds, it leads.

I've seen a huge increase of people who will run or confront a cop when they are doing their job. There used to be a few when I was younger, but even bar fights broke up when the cops came without much need for the cops doing anything. We were taught to respect the cops when I was young and because we ceased doing what we were doing when they came, there was little need for their getting violent. Now society has changed and so has their attitude towards things. Because of people twisting the rules and lawyers getting people off without punishment ,other than paying high legal costs, they get frustrated easier.

Yes, that is what they're supposed to be doing. And alot of what is passing for bad isn't bad when the excessive violence by the bad cops is revealed. But the training to shoot first and ask questions later, is illegal, unlawful and violates all law with precedent in the nations and the constitution.

originally posted by: Unity_99
Yes, that is what they're supposed to be doing. And alot of what is passing for bad isn't bad when the excessive violence by the bad cops is revealed. But the training to shoot first and ask questions later, is illegal, unlawful and violates all law with precedent in the nations and the constitution.

can you provide any sort of links or documentation that shows where they're being "trained" that way? like...can you name a police academy that teaches "shoot first, ask questions later" or anything?

This just in: American citizens are entitled law breakers who want to hurt and kill cops. But the cops should "protect" them, whatever that means.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Wow.

Maybe the Police State has simply criminalized too many aspects of daily life. Like, you know, standing on a street corner dangerously possessing a pack of cigarettes.

People need to quit repeating the rhetoric and realize that the police have no duty to "protect and serve".

Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect someone.

....Maybe if we'd all learn some basic facts, then we could go from there and see what can be done about changing that fact.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Lets get this straight, it is not the cops' job to protect you or anyone else. It is your job to provide protection for yourself and your family. They will investigate crimes, keep the peace and protect the "public" (lately that "public" seems to be more the "State".).

originally posted by: Shamrock6

can you provide any sort of links or documentation that shows where they're being "trained" that way? like...can you name a police academy that teaches "shoot first, ask questions later" or anything?

Too many articles to list if you just type into the GOOGLE search bar "albq cops training shoot first"- if you can't manage that little bit but still insist i spend the time and energry to figure out how to embed the linkie dinkes you are probably too lazy to read the links if they were provided.

The results of said training around here absolutely apparent too seeing as it got federal attention to sweep it all under a carpet.

-LP