originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
The only entity to investigate police misconduct is...internal affairs...which is what? Police. There are officers every day who try to file
complaints against supervisor misconduct. Those complaints are swept under the rug, that police officer is ignored until the department can find
something/anything to fire THEM on. And the crooked/incompetent supervisor in question gets quietly reassigned.
They REALLY need an independent board to investigate ALL complaints. The average joe citizen has NO CLUE how corrupt police departments truly
I think the Average Joe, today, DOES know how corrupt police departments are, which is why LEO's and judges are cracking down so hard on people that
film them while they violate the constitution.
LEO's are not trusted by large portions of the general public any longer. Perhaps not a majority, YET, but still having large numbers concentrated
heavily among those under 40 years of age. Also, even, IF, the under 40 crowd does not believe that LEO's are dangerously lethal to civilians (which
they do), this under 40 cohort, ABSOLUTELY believes that LEO's are, primarily, "revenue collectors".
There are LONG TERM consequence of these actions, which LEO's, as a group, have taken, while in the field and has compounded all the issues
surrounding their increasingly negative public image. Over the last 25 years, contemporary LEOs have proven, through their actions, that they are in
place to do the following and NOTHING MORE:
1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land & business owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that
also contribute to and participate in local politics (i.e. campaign donations for Police Chief and Sheriff elections).
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.
They’ve been totally co-opted, insulated from financial consequences and tax paying citizens are picking up the tab. Many civilians today, view the
police no differently than the way in which police typically view the general public, with suspicion.
Here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet, these people still VOTED TO
DE-FUND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:
Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave
Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities, with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand
anywhere else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public
Civilians should not trust the motivations of LEO's and must always assume that their lives are in danger, with EVERY interaction they have with
Why? Not because ALL LEO's are bad, but because ALL LEO's are LEGALLY AUTHORIZED to kill civilians AND TAKE THEIR PROPERTY, as they see fit.
Law Enforcement Agencies, AS CURRENTLY OPERATED (see above items 1-6), can't function when large numbers of people with good consciences serve in
them. So, even if good people with consciences tried to enact grass-root change from within, they would simply be denied entry to the agency or get
quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means.
Also most importantly, that’s how Fascism works and in turn uses domestic police forces to tighten the grip on those whom are most likely to dissent
against the status quo. Make no mistake about it, LEO's in the United States are becoming the new Ordnungspolizei (Orpo) and there will NEVER be
enough "good apples" to stop this shift. Law Enforcement Agencies and the types of officers they typically employ, like having the option to
"overreact" and if too many internal "do-gooders" start eroding that ability, I suspect that most officers wouldn't want to be in Law Enforcement
anymore. They do "Protect & Serve", but its the STATE that they "Protect & Serve".
Here is an except from Bowers v. DeVito. In 1982, the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by
the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents... but it does not violate... the
"no duty" = "free to ignore" because if there is no financial or legal consequence to inaction, then certainly some "bad apples" will use that as a
legal basis for "choosing", when to "render services" or when not to.
From the perspective of LEO's, the above noted ruling means that they may "pick and choose" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury"
because the ruling does not obligate them to act. It is that perspective, which LEO's are allowed to legally take, that should matter to the average
citizen. The context from Bowers v. DeVito is very clear, the police CHOSE to not assist, despite Marguerite Anne Bowers repeatedly requesting their
help and the courts then determined that the police are not liable for making the "choice" to not help her.
As for the "Oath's" that LEO's typically take, lets use the LAPD oath for example, which seems to be MOSTLY concerned with swearing to not overthrow
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now
advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within
the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or
other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful
means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of
the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
Here is another sample Oath, that focuses on "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State":
I SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR ILL-WILL -
UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO THE BEST
OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER
So exactly how, do these above noted sample Oaths, keep officers from "picking and choosing" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury"
due to having no LEGAL obligation to act? Other than of course, having the LEGAL obligation to keep "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign
Country and State" and also swearing to not overthrow the government.