Cop for a Day

reply to post by catwhoknows


I completely understand your position. There are bad cops, I just don't see why I have to pay the price for their actions when they are a minority compared to us competent, caring, good police officers.

Are all conspiracy theorists bad because of Alex Jones? I guess I'll leave that for another thread lol...

Magnum

I really do get your sentiments and I agree. I liked the video.

I did sidetrack myself thinking what if they asked rodney king?

"Bout time!!!!!....wap wap wap wap wap"

reply to post by Magnum007


I am a total supporter of good cops,

You need to change your avatar - put it into a good cop thing, not a deranged lunatic.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am more than aware that criminology, as is sociology and other studies of that nature, is most often times theoretical because of the fact that they comprise of intangibles that can neither be completely proven or disproved... It would be arrogant on my part to say otherwise.

There exist basic rights that are inviolable, and I agree 100% with that... But where there are rights, there are usually responsibilities that go with them... I know, because my work is all about responsibility. Without that notion, my profession would be a serious mess...

You know, one thing that people (and often officers also) don't realize is that we police officers are the only people who have the power to temporarily "suspend" some of the most fundamental rights. An arrest is a temporary (I say temporary because one habeas corpus is achieved, then it's not in the police's hands anymore) suspension of the freedom (or right) of movement. This "power" is tied to a HUGE amount of responsibility. Every time I make a decision to arrest someone (because it's not always necessary to do so) I need to make sure that this person is kept safely, that they understand what is going on, and that this person can exercise their rights. I don't take this lightly.

What I am trying to say is that society needs the police. There will never be a perfect world, and there will never be a perfect police officer, police force, or policing method. The only thing I can do is keep doing the thing I do best and that is my job.

Now it's bed time... 4:30 in the morning here lol...

Magnum

reply to post by Magnum007


I agree with you that society does indeed need law enforcement, and while I am an avid free market advocate, I do not agree with mnemeth that law enforcement should be privatized. In the United States there is a history of private police, one example being the Pinkerton Agency, and by many historical accounts, the Pinkerton Agency did not seem to give a rats ass about unalienable rights.

I understand that law enforcement has been granted, by way of the people, a temporary lease on power to restrict fundamental rights in the name of justice, and I appreciate your seeming understanding of the gravity of such a situation. Would that more police officers in the U.S. understand the profound responsibility that comes with this temporary lease on power, and how important the subject matter of jurisdiction is regarding that power. What I mean by that, is that any police officer can wind up falsely arresting a person, and when they do so, if it can be shown that this false arrest was done because of total lack of regard for unalienable rights, then there is no immunity from criminal responsibility on this. Too many U.S. police officers want to argue this issue, and insist that The Supreme Court has given them this immunity. It is a gross misunderstanding of what the SCOTUS has actually held, and a horrible disregard for unalienable rights. You seem to get that. This makes me like you quite a bit.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Ok last reply... lol...

When it comes to wrongful arrests, or any breach of rights, it all comes down to one thing :
was the error made in good faith?

If it was then there should be no problem in concluding, at the end of the investigation, that the officer should not be charged. If the officer acted in a way that any reasonable person would, and it turns out to be a mistake, then in my books, it's excusable. I.E. :

I get a suspect description, I find a person with the exact same description and arrest him. It turns out that the guy I arrest didn't do it. That is a good faith error...

Now suppose that I have the guy's description and I purposefully skip over the fact that this guy I found is 6 inches taller, 50 lbs heavier and has different colored eyes... That is not a good faith error...

It's not a "oopsie I made a mistake" situation (which is really inexcusable)... It takes a legitimate, "I took every once of precaution and it somehow there was still a mistake" situation to be excusable.

Ok good night! I'll be back later in the day! (good thing I'm on night shifts and don't have to get up early in the morning!!! lol)

Magnum

reply to post by Magnum007

If it was then there should be no problem in concluding, at the end of the investigation, that the officer should not be charged. If the officer acted in a way that any reasonable person would, and it turns out to be a mistake, then in my books, it's excusable.

We are in agreement on you clarification. I would, however, add to your obvious examples of what is and what is not a "good faith error", and speak from my own experience.

Once I began questioning police officers as to why they were detaining me in my own neighborhood, often times on the very street I lived, I had two experiences where I was unlawfully detained. What I mean by this is that I clarified, and asked the police officer if he suspected me of committing a crime, or did I fit the description of someone who had recently committed a crime, and both times the answer was no, and yet, those police officers insisted that they were detaining me anyway.

While I did not acquiesce to any frisking on either occasion, it took more than 15 to 20 minutes to calmly and rationally explain to those police officers that they had no right to detain me. Both attempted to argue that my complaint was not with them, and that I should complain to the Supreme Court, and I countered that their actions did not in any way constitute a "Terry stop", and that by their own admission they did not suspect me of committing a crime, or fit the description of someone who did. I further explained that other Supreme Court cases granting leeway for police officers regarding detainment did not apply in this context, and that my complaint was not at all with the Supreme Court but with the actions of those police officers.

I politely told them who I was, that I lived on the very street they detained me, told them precisely where I lived, and that I was not in any way violating any laws by walking in my own neighborhood regardless of the time. In both instances I was able to reason with the officers, but it does not change the fact that they both believed they had the right to detain me in spite of the fact that they could show no reasonable cause to do so. The time of night is not enough, failing any report of suspicious activity or crime, and I fitting the description of this suspicious activity, or crime.

While both instances were unlawful detainment, I had no interest in pursuing it any further than the time it took me to explain the situation to them. It is, however, a great annoyance.

Have a good night, or morning, and be safe.

you must be a small town cop .
anyway so your a cop and thats all fine and dandy but tell me MR police man should i be friends with a man who arrest soemone because he had a fight with his wife last night?
should i like a Dude who says drop the complant or well arest YOU? yea had that accutly happen.
tell me mr police man should we all call teh man when a woman is being threatened with a baseball bat only to see super trooper afest her and tell the guy every thing that is hers he can use when ever he wants including the car and the guy doesnt even have a driver licence?
Ill tell you the only way to grante the cop is a good cop that if hes walking or driving another direction.
PSS I HAVE NO police record NEVER been in jail .but have watched as cops took adavange of there GUN and bage IN PERSON.
so fine your a good cop so when you see me walking down the road just drive on by EVEN IF i am being robed thanks .
o pss its not taht i dont want help with the robber i just dont want YOUR help

Click here for more information.

Aww fellas, its all in your perspective. Its how you look at it! Watch the "Rodney king Bill Hicks video" on You Tube, for the truth. I would post a link, but the title uses a bad word.

If cops were out to protect and serve I would be one. They are just tax collectors with guns and bad attitudes, (most of them)...OK over 1/2 at least...

I do feel sorry for the good cops out there, it must truly suck to be you...

The personal attacks will end right now.

Not in the mood for it.

When you have been harassed, and or wrongfully arrested a few times, you tend to distrust and or dislike police. It is only human nature really. It is part of the survival instinct we have. Can't really blame anyone for distrusting and disliking police, because I distrust and dislike them in general. Once I know a certain cop is a decent person, and not a power hungry lunatic, then I look at the individual in a different light.

reply to post by xxcalbier


I'm not quite sure I can answer your questions because i don't have the whole story! How can I form any opinion when I don't have all the facts?


reply to post by acrux


Well it's too bad you have to resort to using the language you do to describe me. I just won't stoop down to your level.


reply to post by meteoritics


LMFAO!!! That video is awesome!!! lol... Super funny!

On a side note, since I see this thread has turned into the usual cops vs. cop haters.

The police get the same wrap as the government. People get fed up because out of the hundreds of thousands of LEOs, it only takes a few bad apples to give the entirety of the profession a bad name. Same with our Executive and Legislative branches. The fact remains that without the government and law enforcement this nation would sink into anarchy and quite literally, a living hell.

There are plenty of good LEOs throughout the country, just as there are plenty of decent politicians throughout the mangled and raped government of ours. The problem lies in the uphill battle that good, honest men (and women) must wage to clear their names.

No system works perfectly, as humans are naturally imperfect. Ego, greed and corruption exist in every level of our society and in every profession you can imagine. This is why idealistic systems of government, such as Communism, never work. There is no way to weed out everyone who is mentally unfit for service. This is exacerbated by the fact that police officers are so tight nit. The blue line, the brotherhood, whatever you want to call it exists because men and women who have one of the most dangerous and unpredictable professions in the world are under constant attack, whether it be physically, verbally or psychologically. This brotherhood is a natural formation, much like the brotherhood you get in military units. The fact is, for every 10 allegations that police have brutalized someone, or misused their authority, it's likely that maybe one or two of those are actually cases worthy of investigation.

To truly progress, we need to focus on two things. The first and foremost being our legislative and judicial process. To truly get at the source of conflict between the governed and the enforcers, we need to change the source of their power. Changing laws is the best and most productive way to change policing policy. If you think a majority of LEOs really enjoy chasing around small fish over a few rocks of crack, only to have shots fired at them, you are wrong. I always hear "well then they should just stop enforcing it." That is fairly moronic from my point of view, as picking and choosing which laws to uphold and which to ignore is as corrupt and egotistic a policy as I can imagine. Police can not, and SHOULD NOT choose which laws they enforce. That is how this land works.

The second point of focus should lie with the LEOs themselves. While I certainly understand the brotherhood, and support it to a limited extent, men and women who wear the badge need to possess the testicular fortitude and willingness to police themselves. I'm not talking about that single extra punch to the head of a suspect who was threatening someone with a knife. Adrenaline has a lot to do with those incidents, and I don't mind seeing someone who was wielding a knife threateningly towards police or civilians take a little extra abuse to ensure he doesn't wiggle free. The serious and blatant abuse of power needs to be self-governed though, you boys need to earn your good reputations back and start kicking ass from within the PD or SD. Run the egotistical and mentally unstable out. That would free up more room for hiring and you are likely to replace those officers with more suitable candidates, assuming you stick to your guns.

I have floated from "camp" to "camp" on this issue. I have experienced the best and worst in LE first-hand from an outsider's perspective. I know quite a few, from troopers to swat dudes all the way to game wardens...errr, conservation police officers as they call them now in the commonwealth. The simple fact remains that the thin blue line is all that separates us from pure insanity. While you may not like the few instances of abuse, who in their right mind does, you have to realize that the benefits FAR OUTWEIGH the negatives. Without law enforcement, especially in populated areas, well, welcome to thunderdome.

There is also a distinction to be made between "abuse" and "force." While a cop with his gun drawn shouting at the top of his lungs over a fairly simple matter may seem abusive to some, to those who know, it is a requirement of the job. Force of action (known as the violence of action in the military community) is needed to ensure compliance and to protect LEOs. I can not tell you how many LEOs have been shot or ambushed during the simplest of matters. I'm all for a few civilians (myself included) being temporarily scared to ensure that an officer or deputy gets to go home and see his children.

While I have served in the military (a long time ago in a galaxy not so far away), I have never been close to signing up for law enforcement. It takes a very unique individual to be a successful LEO, and a whole lot of patience and understanding. I may not agree with many of the laws of the land, but I'm sure plenty of LEOs do not either. It's funny that most of the people who would complain about policing and law enforcement are the last people to get politically active. Quit bitching and get active.

And on a last note, LEOs, I've tried my best to represent your profession and your people in a positive light. The internal policing DOES need to be ramped up though.

Police are the pawns that make sure the politicians can safely turn this country into a fascist corporatocracy for their own profit.

They're the goons that spray down peaceful protests with pepper spray when they argue against real issues that profit government officials because "they were ordered to" rape the rights of "citizens" .

I said it.

Also, I've been to Quebec (I live in Ontario) and I know it's the norm up there to say "But, we're different than all of you!"....

...Let me just remind you....

(Language warning)

Google Video Link

I ask you, which of these were applied to these officers who pelted an otherwise peaceful protest with tear gas?

1. The Canadian Criminal Code,
2. Le Code de Déontologie du Québec
3. Le Code d'éthiques Policier du Québec
4. My police department's internal code of conduct and discipline
5. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
6. The Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms
7. The Quebec Civil Code

...?

Now I ask you, where did the money come from to buy the tear gas? The launcher? The equipment that the officers are wearing? The walkie-talkies that allowed the order to be passed?

"I don't understand why people hate police here in Quebec" .

Originally posted by Magnum007
Prevention is the most important part of our work. If we can stop a crime from happening, or if we can help people prevent things from happening to them, maybe we can help make it safer for the people... PROTECTION...

Magnum

Cops can not prevent crime.

For example, busting a drunk driver did not prevent the drunk driver from driving drunk.

Laws can only punish crime, not prevent it.

Since laws can only punish and not prevent, the only sane laws are those laws that punish people for hurting others or damaging other peoples' property in some way.

If a drunk driver is just over the limit, hasn't hit anyone, hasn't hurt anyone, and is a few miles from home - is it just for the police to arrest him and ruin his life?

No, it is not.

Police are worthless when it comes to preventing real crime, they are only good at looting the public by arresting them for a near endless list of crimes that have no victim.

Who is the victim in my drunk driving example?

Who is going to stand in court and say "I was injured or harmed in some way by this person?"

Who?

No one, that's who.

ALL VICTIMLESS CRIME IS UNJUST

I also suppose us Canadians must forget all about this incident:

Google Video Link

I mean, no big deal though. The man is only dead even though he did nothing illegal. None of the RCMP officers were subject to dismissal, and many of them didn't even receive a suspension. They were labeled "just doing their job".

reply to post by Use your brain


If I could, I would give you an applause for your post. You nailed it right on the head and I thank you for writing such a well thought out, and said post.

reply to post by Brood


Cohesion with corporations? Rape the people's rights? I won't even answer someone who isn't open to normal discussion/debate without using that kind of language.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Magnum007
Prevention is the most important part of our work. If we can stop a crime from happening, or if we can help people prevent things from happening to them, maybe we can help make it safer for the people... PROTECTION...

Magnum

Cops can not prevent crime.

For example, busting a drunk driver did not prevent the drunk driver from driving drunk.

Laws can only punish crime, not prevent it.

Since laws can only punish and not prevent, the only sane laws are those laws that punish people for hurting others or damaging other peoples' property in some way.

If a drunk driver is just over the limit, hasn't hit anyone, hasn't hurt anyone, and is a few miles from home - is it just for the police to arrest him and ruin his life?

No, it is not.

Police are worthless when it comes to preventing real crime, they are only good at looting the public by arresting them for a near endless list of crimes that have no victim.

Who is the victim in my drunk driving example?

Who is going to stand in court and say "I was injured or harmed in some way by this person?"

Who?

No one, that's who.

ALL VICTIMLESS CRIME IS UNJUST

edit on 27-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

The crimes prevented are impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence... Any reasonable person can understand that... Nobody wants to be a victim of an impaired driver, nobody wants them on the road...

Magnum