Police State - Illegal to Record On-Duty Police Officers

page: 6
89
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
but again where are the WRITTEN LAWS

all people post here are acts and bills / propositions and policies ,

if anything this thread is an intimitation psyop




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by ararisq
The cases that the OP is probably referring to is either the State's Attorney or Police Officer charging based on the existing laws not any that are specific to Police Officers.

...

This is probably why they found themselves prosecuted. Not because they caught the police doing something wrong but because they tried to put their own spin on it and an existing law applied.


Err, no. The case is Maryland was four counts advanced by a grand jury. The Circuit Court Judge Emory A Plitt (Great American) threw the case out.



"Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public," Plitt wrote. "When we exercise that power in a public forum, we should not expect our activity to be shielded from public scrutiny."

The judge wrote that Graber's encounter "took place on a public highway in full view of the public. Under such circumstances, I cannot, by any stretch, conclude that the troopers had any reasonable expectation of privacy in their conversation with the defendant which society would be prepared to recognize as reasonable."


The wiretap laws which is the laws you refer to were created to prevent a 3rd party from tapping in to a person's phone lines and recording them without their knowledge - the 2 party rules came about to prevent entrapment where one person recorded a phone conversation with another and using it against them.

Recording a person in public should not be illegal because there is no expectation of privacy. In the Maryland case the police selectively tried to apply the 1960's wiretap laws to prevent the broadcasting of their activities. They stormed the defendant's home four days after the traffic stop and arrested him on wiretap charges.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thanks for the posts, I mostly agree. The points I think I am trying to drive are

(a) there is a worrisome trend in how these cases are coming about. It seems to me that we have a lot of uneducated officers (ignorant of the law and in some cases ignorant of common sense) making these arrests. We have district attorneys deciding that although the case clearly violates the law that they want to take the case to trial anyway. It seems clear that its a lesson to the public - don't record us or we'll make your life hell and drain you financially in legal fees. You cannot tell me that in the Maryland case that they expected to win the case - but they took it to court anyway - it was psychological lesson (negative reinforcement) and not just to the driver but to the entire public at large saying "DON'T MESS WITH US".

(b) this is a trend and it appears to be growing - there have been a number of videos recently of the police and other government 'authorities' stopping people from filming, telling people to put the camera down, get it out of their face, and so on. It is, again, psychological warfare - it is them telling the public you cannot film me, you are breaking the law (even if they are not). Look at the video I posted from the UK which happened in 2007, the officer clearly states "it IS illegal" and then has to call a supervisor to check if he was right (which he wasn't in 2007). Given the path the UK took to legislating the illegality of filming police it isn't hard to see that we are on that same path. Ignorance of the law, immunity from prosecution when the law is violated, psychological warfare against the public, and eventual passage in to law by stealth.

In general, your primary defense for the police surrounds 'common sense' but we increasingly seem to be living in a world where that is being thrown out the _ Although you might not like the NAZI comparison it is an important part of our history (probably the most important event in the last 150 years). The common defense after the war was 'we followed orders'. If we allow ourselves to become a country where people follow orders and do what they are told without exercising that common sense that you mentioned then we should know that that road leads to a very dark place.

There are plenty of examples of overreaching by police and 'federal' authorities like the TSA that show that they are following orders or following the training of external parties which are contrary to both the law and common sense. I have seen the training videos which are being passed out by the federal government to local law enforcement - it is that type of training (in how to violate civil rights in the vain of security) that we need to be wary of.

I'm not anti-police - I am anti-police state (which is just saying I am against the proper police being replaced by ignorant men and women that are more concerned with keeping their jobs than obeying the law and defending liberty so I'm not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Your other argument is that its not that bad - its now down to one state where its in the courts but I wouldn't expect us to wake up in a police state, that would be like waking up and everyone wearing Swastikas, instead I would expect there to be a lot of small battles where some are won and some are lost. It depends on who is paying attention and who gets involved - in Maryland the ACLU was able to get involved and come to the defense of the driver - but I think for everyone one of those there is one that we don't know about. How many people voluntarily submit to searches knowing that they are possessing illegal drugs or weapons? They do not know their rights, they do not know that they can simply say no and if they did they would never have been arrested because the police officer could not have expanded the investigation or would not have had due cause to obtain a warrant. Education about rights is an on-going battle and one that our public education system, I believe purposefully, has completely failed at.

For example in a case where I live a police officer performed a traffic stop, told the driver he was free to leave, and then walked back up to the car and asked if he could search his car. The driver gave permission and illegal narcotics were found - at court the government argued that the traffic stop was over and that the driver was free to leave and so the request to search the car was not part of the traffic stop. They argued this because it has been held time and time again that the police cannot expand an investigation at a traffic stop without due cause for which he had none in this case. In this case by arguing that the traffic stop was completed they attempted to avoid those rulings and the court ruled that no reasonable person would have believed they were free to leave with the police officer re-approaching the car the lights continuing to flash on the police car and that the detainment was illegal - but they then ruled the search was not illegal since consent was given. I should also add a number of the cases I've seen the color of the person's tongue, stains on the floorboard, and 'nervousness' have been considered due cause for illegal detainment and searches - but I don't want to get off in to all of that.

There is not a lot of common sense in expecting that people should be aware of all laws - which are never posted. In California, alone, 725 laws were passed by the state in 2010 and very often in the form of amendment to existing language (Section A, Paragraph 7 is amended to read "...") which does not provide context. Given the vast numbers of people in this country with below average IQ - I find it ludicrous to argue that those people should be able to memorize and understand the hundreds of laws and amendments to existing laws that are passed each year. Saying, ignorance to the law is no excuse is the same as saying 'obey slave'.

They are not even common sense laws, they criminalize activity which was legal the year before and often legal for the 200 years prior to that. That, combined with the police officer and courts ability to side step civilian rights it is clear that the burden if shifted far too much to the public which is to the public's detriment.

I'll conclude by just saying I don't feel good about the direction that we are headed - I fear that too many laws are being passed, too many laws are being misconstrued and abused (wiretapping / public disturbance) and too many regular law-abiding citizens are being swept up in to the legal system. Lastly, not by coincidence, it seems that this activity always accelerates when municipalities are in financial trouble which is going to be the major story I think of 2011.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 
This is a great example of how we are losing our liberties to the police state,this make it harder to assign accountability to authorities that abuse there power.I agree with the poster that we are moving towards a police state and this scares me greatly,as a father of a soon to be 8 yr old son it troubles me that he may one day live in a country that I would not reconize as being the U.S.A.Like stated before everywhere I go I'm being recorded or filmed there are cameras on almost every street intersection in my city,wheres my right to not be recorded on video,granted most law officers are honest,the again so are most citizens.Us law abiding citizens become the enemy when freedom dies for security



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Again a camera captures a crime committed by the blues. Notice how afraid the cameraman is that the cop will notice him filming. So who here is a criminal? The guy beating a man in cuffs with a baton or the one who is filming it?




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ufoyoshi
reply to post by ararisq
 
This is a great example of how we are losing our liberties to the police state,this make it harder to assign accountability to authorities that abuse there power.I agree with the poster that we are moving towards a police state and this scares me greatly,as a father of a soon to be 8 yr old son it troubles me that he may one day live in a country that I would not reconize as being the U.S.A.


I thought the same thing a few days ago about my son - that he won't grow up in the same country that I grew up in. Of course, I don't think I grew up in the same country as my father though as I start to realize how long this trend has been happening.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Thanks for the video I think that illustrates the point fairly well - (a) the person filming has been conditioned through these illegal precedents of arresting people for filming that filming the police is illegal and something to hide - the person clearly feared drawing the attention of the police officer and himself being on the receiving end of the beat down (b) the police officer clearly didn't like that guy's free speech and (c) he probably told him to put his hands behind his back and was just going to beat him until he complied - just like the two officers that tazed a 16 year old with a broken back 19 different times - surprisingly even after 19 blasts he still didn't comply - gee, I wonder why. This police officer is not a public servant, he's a public nuisance and tyrant.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Im gonna reply but im not going to quote so we dont end up with a wall of text.

As far as the first part goes, it needs to be understood that Law Enforcement does not actually charge a person. We do our investigation, and issue a citation or arrest the person and place them on a 24/48 hour hold (depends on state). We submit our PC statement to the PA that details the charge with supporting facts to meet the criteria. At this point its is entirely within the perview of the PA on what happens.

They can either go forward with our PC, reduce the charge, charge them under a different statute or delcine to prosecute all together. When laws are passed the AG will at times give his offical position on how a law should be enforced, which gives us clarity when dealing with a call, and the PA for the county in terms of prosecuting a crime.

As far as taking something to court, and I see this argument alot, where people make the rgument its not a law violation I ask this. How do you know its not a law violation? I dont mean any disrespect by being direct with that, but I see that a lot, yet no one can explain why its suppsedly not a violation.

In terms of a trendh, I agree and disagree. I agree that cameras and audio recording are on the rise, and its done in part to protect suspects/victims etc, as well as the Officer. I was involved in a pursuit where I was accused of pulling the drivers girlfriend of the back of his motorcycle and throwing her to the ground. The guy went the whole 9 yeards, accusing me of lieing in my report, etc etc. My dash cam and audio was part of my evidence, and in the end vindicated me and created additional charges against my accuser for filing a false report.

Becuase we are in the time of suing, a lot of departments are moving to more advanced technology for audio, video etc, including tasers with auido and video and duty weapons with the same. The examples people cite about, and I will use the ones in the OP, is one of the reoccuring issues I see on this point. I have had this argument a few times now, and the same incidents are used.

If a cop misbehaves then yes, it makes the news. When I stop a vehicle for a violation, issue a citation, chat a bit with the driver, send them on their way and I go bak in service, does not make for very good news, let alone something to watch on youtube.

See my point there? Sucess is not reported, just failure.

The commands from officers, in the examples you are using, is a problem. If I am telling a person to get the camera out of my face, or get out of my way, that is a clue that they are to close and are interfering in the situation. Lets use the TSA incident as an example. Airports in this country are private, not public. The TSA has some federal comissions in their ranks, but for the most part they are not comissioned law enforcement, which means the 42 SC 1983 requirements generally will not apply since they are not operating under the color of law.

Pulling a camera out in an airport is not illegal - except when an employee or designated person (designated by a competant authority who can speak for the airport-owner, operating official etc) tells you to stop. Refusing to comply can rise to a criminal offense at the moment you are told to stop. Failure to stop and you can be told to leave. Failure to leave is a criminal offense because its now tresspassing.

Ive had this issue in a Hospital before where a family was interfering with medical staff. Secuirty told these people on numerous occasion to calm down and elt medical work. Finally a fight broke out, security detained 3 of them, and I transported them to jail for tresspassing.

People do not adequately understand what their rights are when they are observing, nor do they understand their rights when being detained. They do not understand their rights while on private property, and I believe this is an issue we constantly run into here in these forums.

As far as my comment about it not being bad, because its down to 1 state. My point is if we were in a Police State, this discussion would not be taking place. The article info you cited would not be allowed, and this discussion here would be non existant. In a Police State, the rule of law is replaced by the law of Rule. The simple fact that this crap occurs, and makes it to court, and the Government gets spanked by the judge is a constant reminder that our system, while no where near perfect, works as it should.

The flip side to your argument is whats the difference between a Police State where the Government rules, and a State where the rule of law is ignored and personal justice becomes the norm? Damned if we do, damned if we dont.

Traffic Stops are goofy as each State has criteria on how they work, while having an overall governing guidline by the Supreme Court of the US. Some State will not allow officers to ask questions or perform any actions that go beyond the intial reason for the stop. The state I am in does not have this requirement, however the PA makes it very clear that a pretextual stop wont be accepted (we cant pull someone over for speeding with the intent of searching the car because we might find drugs).

Does it happen? Of course because no one is perfect. What it does do for us though it reminds us why we are here, that we are to serve the public and not the other way around, and forces us to hold ourselves to a higher standard. It no different than pulling a person over and giving a ticket for no seatbelt, when the officer himself doesnt wear one.

I agree with the overall direction you think we need to go. At the same time though seeing this argument from both sides of the fence, I think some of the issue brought up are more of an issue for people who dont adequately understand their rights, or even how the system works. I dont know how many times I am accused of false charges, writing citations to raise money etc.

LEO's dont work for the Judicial branch, we work for the executive. We have nothing to do with passing laws, or finding people guilty and issuing fines. Thats all done by the court system, so we are not the ones to argue with to make your case, thats what the judge is for.

I do personally belive some incidents are blown out of proportion, and this goes back to people not understanding their rights. An example is in another thread a person told people they had a right to video record a traffic stop they are involved in. They do not, as they are seized under the 4th amendment and as such freedom of movement and actions in restricted.

I also beleive some of these video incidents are done on purpose in order to elicit a response from Law Enforcement for whatever reason. Personally I fell at times its done for a settlement because most City councils are concerned about PR and the cost of fighting a lawsuit, they would rather jsut pay out to make something go away, instead of standing their ground and backing the officer.

Long story short - by all means we need to hold our government accountible, including the Police. This i done by participation in government at all levels. At the same time I just want to remind people that have no concept of how our job works (and watching cops does not qualify a person to know how our job works) that 99 percent of the time we have legitimate reasons for our actions, and the camera does not always show the entire story.

If you really want an idea of how things on this side work, talk to your local law enforcement agency to see if they allw ride alongs and try to do one. This allows you to ride along with an officer and see and experiance our side of the fence.

When being pulled over by a cop, people are nervous about getting a ticket. When we pull someone over for speeding, we are nervous about being shot and killed by an escaped felon that we possibly just pulled over.

Its not as simple as people make it out to be. I urge people to check into doing a ride along, if for no toher reason than to attempt to see things on our side.

Thanks for letting me post another wall of text.. Sorry its long winded, but in my opinion at times knowledge is power and its good to get info from both sides of the issue. It helps us find common ground and createds a better understanding.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ufoyoshi
 


Can you please tell me what rights you are loosing to the poilice state and can you provide me examples? I have seen this comment a few times now, and this is the second time ive asked and as of now, no answer.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 

The incident you linked occured in St. Louis city for starters. As I said before linking a video with no supporting information is a problem, and the camera does not always show the entire story.

Report from NowPublic.com


What is not included on the video, or anywhere else in your post, or even the article above is the pertinant information.

lets see:

St. Louis City is looking into the incident. The "cop" was off duty and was working security at the gas station this incident occured at.

KSPR33 News

ST. LOUIS (AP) — St. Louis police are investigating after a YouTube video surfaced showing a city officer using his nightstick to beat a man.

Police said in a statement Tuesday that while the circumstances are not yet known, the video is disturbing. Police say they have not yet identified the officer, but he will be placed on administrative duty once identified, until the investigation is complete.

The video was shot early on New Year's Day, at a convenience store, through the window of a car that was not involved.


The 2 news stories look exactly alike, howver the first link left out a few details that might be pertinant to the situation:

what missing? The other side of the story:


The convenience store owner, Joel Platke, says the officer was off-duty working security at the store when the young man came in and caused a disturbance. He says what the video doesn't show is the young man grabbing at the officer's ankles. Platke says he believes the officer did nothing wrong.


Should it be investigated? ABSOLUTELY without a doubt. However, it should be placed into context, and the entire story should be looked at so people can make an informed opinion, instead of looking at a youtube video that does not show anything but the beating itself.

Please remeber this when you post videos. I dont mind the accusations if they are warranted, but when you post a video and make no effort at all to present the entire picture, its problematic. In essence, you are doing exactly what people acsuse the cops of doing. Manipulating video to support their side of the story.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ararisq
Thanks for the video I think that illustrates the point fairly well...


The only point it illustrates is the ability for a recorded incident to be portrayed in a manner that might not be the entire story. See my post above for more info on this. Again, the entire story is required, and not just one view of it since it does not always show the entire story, or even place actions in context.

Also I point out that at no point did anyone look into the link. People jsut accepted the video, and the posters opinion on the incdent at face value without question.

The exact same thing LEO's are accused of doing.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by ararisq
Thanks for letting me post another wall of text.. Sorry its long winded, but in my opinion at times knowledge is power and its good to get info from both sides of the issue. It helps us find common ground and createds a better understanding.


Thanks, its a very good post and I respect your side of the view - as I said I'm not being anti-police as some people are but I do worry about the direction the 'state' is headed in. I agree that the 'if it bleeds its leads' type of mentality is why we see all of the negative actions that are happening. I think partly I am discouraged by the actions in Maryland and Illinois more than anything and the arguments which are being presented. In Maryland the arrest (at his home) happened 4 days later I believe - I would imagine a warrant for his arrest had been issued and then as you say when it was turned over to the PA it wasn't dropped but pushed on. In Illinois the act seemed to be to thwart the objective of Chris Drew which was to raise awareness and bring the peddling statute to court. The PA dropped that charge (how nice) and elected to charge him on eavesdropping and the whole idea that any attorney or officer can use a wiretapping or eavesdropping charge to discourage accountability is worrying. These cases start creating a trend and media outlets start reporting that "you better watch out next time you take out that camera" - and off we go to unaccountability land. Again, thanks for your posts - you sound like the type of officer that is needed.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


Anytime and no worries.. Your view points are your view points and its nice to be able to have a conversation that allows those views to come forward.. I like to talk about this stuff because, at least to me, it helps me do my job better by understanding the thought process on the other side that I dont always see.

As far as Maryland goes (well any state actually as far as I know), Police Officers cannot issue an arrest warrant. If we investigate a crime, and devlop enough information that takes us into the we have probable cause to believe, based on this evidence, this person is a suspect, we submit the info to the PA. The PA reviews it, if they agree sign off on it and submit it to a judge. The judge signs off on the arrest warrant.

Quick breakdown:
1 Incident occurs requiring Police
2 We investigate to see if a crime occurs - If yes we move on, if not our involvement ends
3 Low level crime, we can issue a citation, with option of taking them to jail or releasing them
4 Felony level crime we can make an arrest if we have enough info at time, or we investigate, identify suspect, and write up a pc statement (in addition to our full reports) and send it to PA Office.

A - PA Office reviews all the info, and does there thing with charges (yes, no, chaned etc).
B PA will submit info for a warrant, signed off by a judge.
C Warrant hardcopy is sent o records, and electronic entry is made into our leo system state wide.

If a warrant is going to be canceled, its done by a judge and not LEO or the PA office. Sometimes the system ddoes not clear immidiately and we have a person arrested on an invalid warrant. Thisis rare in my state and I have only seen it once.

Thats the process in a nutshell.

There are time limits for filing charges. Generally speaking if its a misdemeanor its up to 1 year. A felony can go a lot longer depending on the crime.

The smple fact that the states went through with this, and the system said no, reminds me we are not as bad off as people make it out to be. As Isaid, the system is not perfect, and sometimes does not always work, but compared to other systems in use today, ill take our system every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
The only point it illustrates is the ability for a recorded incident to be portrayed in a manner that might not be the entire story. See my post above for more info on this. Again, the entire story is required, and not just one view of it since it does not always show the entire story, or even place actions in context.


I did read the article when it was posted and saw the mention that he wasn't wearing a valid police officer uniform, there was no police car, and that the suspect was grabbing at his ankles. I think the point is still valid though - the person filming felt they were doing something that they needed to hide (which is the broader issue) and the force exerted certainly didn't seem to meet the requirement as evident by the statement that he will be placed on leave once they figure out who he is. I think in non-police officer cases when person B swings back at person A in defense person B usually ends up taking his lumps in the legal system as well. I've told my son to defend himself and not roll over when he is attacked at school which has happened a number of times and he usually ends up getting punished as severely as the 'multiple' children that started the attack. The zero-tolerance policy is a horrible policy and lacks common sense.
edit on 1/5/2011 by ararisq because: Something happened.
edit on 1/5/2011 by ararisq because: I guess I long for the days of Andy Griffith.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What's up with this 'entire story' rhetoric I hear from all cop defenders all the time. It doesn't matter if the guy had a nuke in his pants before the video started.
for that.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Good posts and good points in this thread from you. You raise several good points and they made me think of this.

I guess it boils down to trust between leo's and citizens when you take it far enough. Citizens don't trust the leo's so they video tape them. Leo's don't trust the citizens so they tell them to stop taping, arrest them for it, etc.

I've read enough of your posts to know you certainly reasonable. I think you can see why, "I can videotape you whenever I want and do with it as I please, but you can't take a video of me." raises the suspicion of the public. I'm not accusing you of taking this stance. I'm just saying its how these laws and some officers actions often come across.

So what's the solution to getting the public's trust back of leos back?



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


What's up with this 'entire story' rhetoric I hear from all cop defenders all the time. It doesn't matter if the guy had a nuke in his pants before the video started.
for that.


Your post showed just the video with no other info to place it into context. It occurs a lot in these forums, where a video is posted and info is either left our, or specific info is left out, changing the nature of the video being shown.



Again a camera captures a crime committed by the blues. Notice how afraid the cameraman is that the cop will notice him filming. So who here is a criminal? The guy beating a man in cuffs with a baton or the one who is filming it?


You linked a video with no info about it. You state the camera captures a crime comitted by the blues, yet fail to say what that crime is or give any info to support the charge claim. You point out how afraid the camerman is, which is actually the camera mans problem and is completely irrelevant aside from trying to paint it to fit the thread here. The implication is the cop will beat him if he sees him recording the incident, which is unfounded.

You make the comment the cop is beating a guy in handcuffs, which is a flat out fabricated statement on your part, either because you didnt pay attention to the video, didnt care about relaying proper facts or you wanted to paint a picture for some other alterior reason to make the situation to be worse than it was.

So please, again, when you post footage, please provide information if possible, and dont editorialize and insert your opinions and try to pass them off as fact.

You hear from all cop defenders.. lol. What you did in your post is what you accuse the cops of doing. Lieing to change the story. So yeah, when I say please show the entire story, its meant jsut as that. The entire story and not your added statements that never occured.

for making a comment portrayed as fact when it was your your opinion and did not occur in the video.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Frogs
 


A common sense approach in my opinion. The war on drugs is an absolute failure from top to bottom. In other threads I have chimed in about looking at what Portugal does, personal amounts of narcotics and you get the choice of rehab or jail. I dont agree with decriminalizing hard narcotics though (coc aine, crack etc).

Our forumale for dealing with the drug problem, inacarceration over rehabilitation should be reveresed.

I think Police need to go back to a more Comunity Orientated Patrol setup, where we have more contact with the people through proactive activities, and not from traffic stops or stuff like that. The people need to take an intrest in the community and become involved in local Government so they know whats going on.

Cities, in my opinion, should worry less about PR and more about standing behind their officers and decisions. When they give in, the criminal wins all the time because it sends the message the city wont fight. Law Enforcement needs to be adequately funded, and this comes through earned trust with the citizens we serve.

Above all we need to redo our strategy at the Federal Level. I believe we need a strong military. I think other funding we piss away on stuff not needed is an issue.

Education is going to be the silver bullet in all of this. We should fund our schools like we fund the military. We need to get back to being a world leader in science, technology, exploration. We need to give our kids a future by getting spending under control.

Last but not least, we need to give Americans something to beleive in and rally around. President Kennedy pretty much screwed us with the Space Race in terms of hitting a pinnacle, with no other ambitions to go beyond it with subsequent presidents.

There is not one thing the Police, City Council, Individuals, Federal / State Government can do on their own. This is a total team effort, and we are either going to sink or swim together. I still have faith in this country that we can get out of the mess we are in. I think the people think so also, but right now its not focused.

Other than this stuff, I think Albert Einstein hit the nail on the head:

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Frogs
 

I think Police need to go back to a more Comunity Orientated Patrol setup, where we have more contact with the people through proactive activities, and not from traffic stops or stuff like that. The people need to take an intrest in the community and become involved in local Government so they know whats going on.


I think this is the best approach - in and edit I said "I long for the days of Andy Griffith" and that was the corner-stone of the Andy Griffith show - he knew his community and his neighbors and they knew and trusted him. He wasn't out to raise revenue and he didn't treat people like the enemy - even the town drunk. I have not historically agreed with your idea about narcotics because I was raised in the Reagan era but I think it makes sense now - I would rather do away most criminal offenses and focus in on the ones that matter and do away with the prison system - people need to make reparations to their victims for their crimes and serve the public and not go through a revolving door prison system. Murder, rape, and the like need old testament style severe punishments. We need to clean up our culture if we have any hope of avoiding the police state - to an extent I can understand the thoughts behind the police state because as the public gets more and more out of control (not in civil rebellion but in criminal activity its hard to imagine an alternative solution).

I saw a documentary on a group I think in Philadelphia that got fed up with seeing the same drug dealers on their corners year after year even after serving time and decided to take a tougher stance against it. They worked with the police to document criminal offenses and activity and then brought them before a town meeting with hundreds of people and basically blackmailed them in to changing their way of life by telling them - stop dealing drugs and work with us inside the community at jobs provided by the community or we'll use this evidence against you to put you away for good. Not surprisingly when confronted by the entire community most of them broke down in tears, begged forgiveness, appreciated the second chance, and accepted that they'll have to start over and make changes in their life. If you grow up in crime, you'll end up in crime and being locked up for 4 years is not going to change that.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 


To be honest, right now, the days of Andy Griffith are over with. When I worked for a smaller department we had the ability to chose what we wanted to do because of low call volume. I liked to drive through the neighborhoods and talk to people to see whats going on. Funny enough property crimes can accidentally be solved in this manner.

Someone sees a person walkin around the neighborhood they never saw before etc. They didnt call the police because they didnt know about the crime. The problem we run into though is shrinking resources. Some agnecies are stretched so thin, that their only responsibility when they go into work is taking calls. It gets old at times going into work and constantly having 10-50 calls pending, where everytime you clear one call, 3 more pop up on the screen.

This leads to over worked officers, which causes real concerns about safety for everyone.

One of the other issues, and I think it might help some people understand is funding. The FEderal Government gives out grant money to agencies in different areas, as well as the state. In order to get some of this money, the agency has to show a need for it. So for instance if an agency has 50 DWI arrests in one month, and the town population is maybe a 1000 people, its possible they can get grant money for targeted DWi enforcement. This money will pay officers to specifically go look for DWI drivers.

Its a double edged sword at times because it will force agencies to sacrifice in an important area in order to focus on another important area.

As far as the drugs go, you and I grew up at the same time. I never agreed with rehab for drugs and I felt people should go to jail for it. That program was succesful in placing people in jail, but has done nothing to reduce the problem. Placing someone in jail but doing nothing to get the person off the habit that landed them there is a recipe for repeat disasters and wasted money.

In terms of Portugals setup, I dont agree with it as is. Marijuana should be decriminalized to the extent of do it in your home, dont do it while driving, and dont carry it on you when you go to wherever you are going. If its going to be legal, leave it in your home.

Other drugs, im not a fan of legalizing at all. I have had the unique experience of fighting with a person on PCP and I dont ever want to have to go through it again. I still believe we should have penalities for people who refuse to comply with the law, but I think making an attempt to help them get off drugs and getting them back into being a full productive member of society is in our intrest as well as theirs for many reasons.

I dont have all the answers, and the ones I have given are based on my experiences. I dont presume to speak for anyone other than myself, as I am sure there are other leos in here who cringe when they see me reply to posts who think im a complete moron.

All that aside, it needs to start with communication.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-1-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join