Police aren't the problems it's the politicians and legislated intrusion

Police officers are an extension of bad policies set forth by bad government.

They are not rogue officers enforcing their own laws and following their own rules. The rules come down from the politicians who legislate what it is they are to do and how they are to do it.

Stop blaming police officers for what's going put the blame where it belongs in the hands of the politicians who have no idea what their doing.

Cops Can Stop Harassing People, if Voters and Politicians Stop Pushing Laws That Make Them

Police today are left told by democratically-elected governments to enforce petty laws strictly while also given privileges and immunities by those governments that make it difficult, if not impossible, to fire some officers absent of a criminal conviction. This puts the communities they police in danger, by creating police interactions where violence is introduced to otherwise non-violent behavior. It also puts police in danger, by forcing them into unnecessary interactions and by creating such protections from there, largely through police contracts and state laws, that public outcry often seems like it'd be more likely to produce a criminal charge (but not necessarily a conviction) than a termination. All the officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray (alleged by police to have an illegal knife) in police custody have retained their jobs. Those who have been tried so far have been found not guilty.

Here is in this opinion piece is what I believe the problem to be as well.

Legislation that puts peace officers at odds with the community creating a dynamic otherwise unnecessary.

This is ultimately a problem with government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong.

The solution is not MORE government but less government, less legislation and more freedom.

As always, the solution is freedom.

a reply to: onequestion


Yea and cops, these cops in particular died for something greater than themselves. Anyone catch that? Anyone understand? These cops were set up an assassinated to assuage a boil over.

a reply to: onequestion

The whole system is crap (the decriminalization of drugs would be a good start) but I'd say that the attitudes and behavior of some police are part of the problem.

What they do have control over is how they enforce these horrible laws.

And lets not forget that much of "law enforcement" today is nothing more than revenue generation.

Cities searching for revenue look to their police departments as a way to cash in.

Police Chief Michael Reaves of Utica, Michigan, says the role of law enforcement has changed over the years. “When I first started in this job 30 years ago, police work was never about revenue enhancement, but if you’re a chief now, you have to look at whether your department produces revenues,” he says. “That’s just the reality nowadays.”

a reply to: Logarock

It's a distraction to get Hillary into office so the global cabal can continue our march into total technocratic control.

Millions of Sanders supporters just got nailed hook line and sinker and they all fell for it.

Incredible.

Thats the problem "enforce".

In a free society its a oxymoron.

Uk has what we call policeing by concent which was set up by the founder of the UK police called Robert Peel and are called the peelian principles .
These are the foundation and guiding principles that the UK police is set on.

The nine principles were as follows:



To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.


To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.


To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.


To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.


To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.


To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

Now the UK police are not pefect and have had there fair share of problems and fallen short of the above on occasion.

And im not naive into thinking that US cops could do there jobs disarmed.

But seems to me they could learn alot from Robert Peel.

a reply to: onequestion

Yes we are in serious trouble.

My son is in the guard and now at pre RNC training.....and going to the pistol range every day.

This was all before Panthers announced they are going to attend with weapons. I am thinking about finding some men and going up as militia and standing between my son and the Panthers.

At any rate if anything happens to him I will hold the governor responsible personally.

its a media issue. there were something like 250 white folks shot by cops over the same time period when 150 black folks were shot by cops

all we ever see is the white on black stuff

its divide and conquer, plain and simple

a reply to: Logarock

You can bet your bottom dollar there is going to be chaos at the RNC.

Make no mistake about it the occult masters chose the Full Moon Grand Cardinal Cross astrological event to set the stage for a false flag.

I already made my prediction.

Hell must be freezing over.

I actually agree with priest.

a reply to: neo96

My thoughts exactly, couldn't believe it myself!

Now I've agreed with both of you in close proximity something must be going down for real Neo!!!

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
there were something like 250 white folks shot by cops over the same time period when 150 black folks were shot by cops

But caucasians are like 72% of the population in the states, where as black people are only around 12% of the population. So you've essentially just posted stats that prove your very argument false... lol.

Your thread sounds to be just a wee bit anti-union. Is that really your cause here?

All the officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray (alleged by police to have an illegal knife) in police custody have rd their jobs. Those who have been tried so far have been found not guilty.

you have issues with this?

a reply to: onequestion

Police today are left told by democratically-elected governments to enforce petty laws

so nobody ever got shot by the police under a republican government ever?

The solution is not MORE government but less government, less legislation and more freedom.

so basically the people with a bigger militia would rule the underclasses, removing laws has a history of failing.

a reply to: stinkelbaum

I'm not a republican I'm a classical liberal.

You took that to the extreme.

a reply to: onequestion

Finally someone can see beyond the vista and understand why the vista is there.

a reply to: onequestion

Law enforcement officers (aswell as members of all branches of armed forces) are ultimately and always bound by conscience while upholding and restoring law and order.

They are even obliged to refuse commands and policies that are unlawful or morally reprehensible - and otherwise fully individually liable.

That standard was set in postwar Germany (for good #ing reasons), and is internationally valid.


*tl;dr: "I was just following orders" is invalid.

a reply to: syrinx high priest


You nailed it....FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR HATE HATE HATE HATE OBEY OBEY OBEY OBEY over and over and over again every stinking day on the TV, on the radio, in the newspapers, in the movies and on the internet.