It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Police academy class slogan: Cause PTSD

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 05:39 PM
reply to post by doctorwork

Well then if you are what you say you are then maybe you need to be putting that in your FITREP's on these officers. You seem to be in the right position to do something about it....SO WHY DONT you!

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by scientist

I am glad you found what you were looking for.
I am just upset with this whole issue and I think unfortunately it was set off by your post, especially about how the mil looks at civs.

I will just lay it out for everyone.. I have very little academia, the bulk of my experience is over 12 years military in the Operations and Intel department. I also instructed, developed and trained warfare on all levels.
I have broken service so I saw a wide variety of events.

When I decided to get out I said to myself I have served my country now I wish to serve my community and guess what I became...That is right a police officer.

When I look at the views I see here it is so far from anything I have experienced, I would laugh if I could.

As far as former military, they do have diff experiences. They are far more seasoned and are actually way more laid back then these younger guys that may or may not taken a year of criminal science and then went for an academy.

I have only even heard of one such incident involving a military guy and he had never even been overseas to face an enemy. He was overly aggressive with a driver who claimed not to hear his siren and guess what happened HE WAS FIRED.

I will tell all of you this Police are people who watch the government just like every citizen does, they see things going on just like you, because they are you. Police are citizens and it upsets me to think that people do not understand what police officers face at every stop. Life and death and what makes it hard is that you know you are dealing with citizens but you do not know what is going to happen, it is like Gump and his box of chocolates.

I can assure my ATS people that if it goes down hill in this Country, this Officer and many others will be right there beside you.

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 12:20 AM

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

Perhaps when you see this slogan printed on police vehicles you can start to worry about where the oversight was.


Good point, oversight was the only fitting word I could muster at the moment... maybe "selective screening" would be better. Either way, no harm no foul, but it begs me to question:

Did the behavior of these people result in this action, or did some action result in this behavior?

I'm not implying that ALL law enforcement peoples are bad, corrupt... or what have you, as I have seen both sides... and generally speaking they are "just doing what they are told to do" and alot of times the human ego tends to sway to the side of superiority complexes.

I remain,
The Telemetry

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:00 AM
I am a woman in middle age with no criminal record In the city where I live I had been disgusted by the police actions. I've had two encounters myself....once when I was hit by a car and a good samaritan chased after the driver to get the license plate. He called it in....long story short they wouldn't listen to me or to the good samaritan who tried to explain to them how I was walking in the cross walk when the red truck came right at me. The police told him to get back in his van. During this time, the red truck returned to the scene of the crime probably hoping I was dead. I was treated very badly by the police and the drive didn't get fined or anything.

The second incident was when I was leaving my home and heard a child (later found out he was 10 years old) screaming "my leg, my leg." I went over...there were 3 police officers, 2 males, 1 female. A 30 yr old officer stated how he told the kid not to ride his bike that way. Meanwhile, the driver of the red truck (yes, it was red as well, but not the same as my accident) was cool and calm not worried about anything. It got much worse because after 20 minutes there was no ambulance yet and after what I experienced I yelled out why they are blaming the child, where's the cop came right up to my face with his finger. I said, officer please don't put your finger in my face. He turned around and the 30 yr old yelled out that I could be arrested and it became a shouting match.......It was a nightmare for me and I have PTSD.

It wasn't until I walked a short block and was talking to a man in the neighborhood when he said the ambulance showed up. So it was a good half hour. My head hurts just thinking about these two situations.

I've seen a cop take drugs from someone and let them go, now I know that they aren't bringing that back to the precinct. The cops have seen people selling drugs sometimes on three corners and nothing is ever done. I have no doubt that there are many people in many other cities who could say some of the same things.

I called a lawyer....didn't really get a good response and to tell you the truth I was pretty scared about making a formal complaint. So, there are many complaints that don't get filed for fear of repercussions.

The police officer who I think started the thread is from what I would term the "old school." It was very different when I was a kid. The officer's mentality was much better and there wasn't that superior attitude that police officers have now. I'm sure it isn't just in the city where I live. I would tell anyone that if they were driving on the highway, day or night, and an officer was trying to pull them over.....that they should continue to the nearest exit where there is a lot of people so at least there are witnesses to the event.

My last comment, I think having a cell phone to call a friend or family member should always be available and a camcorder is an excellent idea for anyone to have.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:25 AM
reply to post by Rubyteacup

Hi Ruby, and thank you for your post....

The police officer who I think started the thread is from what I would term the "old school." It was very different when I was a kid. The officer's mentality was much better and there wasn't that superior attitude that police officers have now.

Yes, I guess I am of the old school... lol I am female and middle aged too. I moved to the country about 17 years ago, so I guess I do not see as many police interactions as a city member does, I suppose that adds to my shock of the obvious "us vs. them" mentality so prevalent today. Since joining ATS, I have become much more aware of the militarization of Law Enforcement, and to be honest it is very sad.

Both of your interactions with the police do illustrate a deepening divide between common sense and outright hostility directed at the public by LE. I am sorry you had to go through that.

Thank you so much for your post.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:34 AM
One more example.

Generally there are two types of people in society. Civilians and predators. By civilians, I mean ordinary people who just go about their business without thoughts of exploitation.

Predators are driven to exploit others. Like a wild animal, they see a weakness, it activates their prey response. Some manage to suppress this urge, but many do not. Some redirect this urge into socially acceptable venues, such as sports.

A predator might not be overtly aggressive; I'm talking about a behavior that is central and it might be expressed passively (passive-aggressive).

Now criminals are mostly 'predators'. Many military career types are predators. Many police are predators by nature.

Thus, for this and for other reasons, cops and criminals are not that different. They share many traits and they depend on each other.

Without criminals, cops are generally just doing traffic duty. Without criminal informants, cops don't have that information flow.

Now, say you were a victim of a crime by a CI (confidential informant). If it was a very serious crime and there were witnesses, a cop will give up his CI. But say the crime is less serious. Hit-and-run with minor to moderate injuries might be one example.

If the cop knows who did it (say by the car's description), is he going to give up a major source of information just to give justice to the citizen? Maybe, maybe not.

As we've seen, there's no legal bases for cops 'protecting' anyone. It's more-or-less optional or situational.

Now, say you dispute the cop on this. Now his self-protection instincts kick in and they start looking for reasons to prosecute the victim. In fact, many cops will pull things out of their hat if a citizen is not fully cooperative, even if the cop has no legal basis for stopping or questioning them.

They are experienced at getting what they want and being natural predators and having 'training' will not back down.

While not all cops are predatory in nature, many soon start exhibiting those traits. They 'learn' from other cops.

This is one way you can understand why it's better to avoid interfering, reporting on, or making complaints. They have your name linked to your license plate. That's an easy entry point for cops to start the harassment and intimidation if they please.

2 cents.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:53 AM
One thing to add.

If you are going to have a 'protective' class of people, military, law enforcement, fire and rescue, then some of the traits frequently found in the predator type are advantageous.

You want someone who will stand as a 'wall', who will not give up when pushed, and will pursue and apprehend, when appropriate.

But you want people who are professional, and who do not depend solely on aggression and domination.

If possible you want to pick against type in some traits, or from those who have balancing traits. Well-educated and even tempered. Female officers who will use persuasive tactics and work by the book, rather than inappropriate coersion.

Now, bear in mind that we are not often very sophisticated in the selection process for law enforcement candidates. We tend to pick buff, large guys who look like they can intimidate. Then to add to the problem (unlike the Brits) by giving them firearms.

You end up with the potential for a subset of society that is even more (potentially) dangerous then the criminals, many of whom, though predators are also cowardly and non-confrontational (passive-aggressive). Cops will not back down, often especially if they are somewhat in the wrong. (thus perjury on the witness stand). They justify and use situational ethics, and their main motive is often to protect their own group of fellow officers. (thus the rampant hatred of cops for prosecutors, defenders and judges).

It's hard to place the blame on cops, however. The blame should be directed toward those that hire, train, supervise and counsel. If they are doing their job, the problem can be mitigated.

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 09:34 AM
reply to post by Badge01

I suppose that the notion of our police as 'peace keepers' is now 'old-fashioned'. My take had always been that this kind of mentality exemplifies why we do not want to employ military personnel as police in a civilian setting (not a reference to our MPs, and SPs, out there, which is totally different.)

I have to say, the as the new 'security' paradigm has been adopted by our 'public' and 'civil' servants, a new 'aloofness' is becoming prevalent in out police and justice personnel. They seem to be migrating towards the tendency to perceive themselves as superior to those they serve.

The steady decline in accountability has done nothing but reinforce this notion that you can never confront such a person without them bringing the full force of the law behind them, as if instead of questioning their judgment or behavior, your attacking the entire establishment. This puts anyone in such a position as to be considered either a trouble-maker, anarchist, unpatriotic, or even a terrorist or criminal sympathizer.

How can this be a good thing? We have just recently been 'gifted' with the legal maxim that "death-by-taser" can never be attributed to police action again, yet again removing accountability for actions from unnecessarily aggressive police conduct. Is this what the people are expected to support?

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Maxmars]

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:34 PM
reply to post by Maxmars

Well, my experience with the police, though extremely limited has always been positive. I'm always helpful, polite and non-argumentative. I'm a model citizen and have only had 2 tickets in my 25+ years of driving.

I can't really blame the cops, because it's a jungle out there. But I do blame their supervisors, trainers and upper management. The cops need more training, and empowerment and support. That way, I'd suspect, they'd take less of their frustrations out on the citizenry, and perhaps learn to distinguish between a citizen and hardened criminal.

There's no call for using bullying, intimidation, threats and lies to deal with a granny who fails to cut her grass. Everyday we hear more and more reports of cops attacking innocents, bursting into their houses and then leaving the homeowner to clean up and pay for the mess, leaving them in a state of shock and trauma.

That we see this more and more means that management is giving tacit approval for these actions, and only give fake apologies if caught by the press. In fact, recently they don't even do that - the blue wall closes up and we hear the familiar 'on going investigation, no information available'.

Then they transfer people to other departments and the issue dies out. Unfortunately, victims are actually dying. (note the non-responsive 911 operator story).

It's getting to the point where the cops don't even see their own behavior, as evidenced by the tactics used here by alleged law enforcement officers, arguing issues unaware of the law, shouting in all caps and using threatening avatars against T&C. Imagine what these guys are like IRL!

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Badge01]

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in