reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
Your logic is appalling.
Cops aren't the only ones who are "trained", so by your criteria, if a cop followed a vet home and seemed to pose a threat, the vet would be more than
justified in removing the threat to his family with extreme prejudice. Furthermore, cops illegally violate privacy and harm innocent people every day
of the week, even a cursory search will prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, so to imply infallibilty in that area is ridiculous.
Police are human, and therefore not infallible. "Not infallible", means mistakes are made. That means sometimes even good cops follow someone to their
home erroneously and scare the bejeesus out of them at a minimum, and kill innocents in the worst case. When that happens, the public gets a "sorry
'bout that", and the cops involved usually get a paid vacation until things blow over. Justice must be reciprocal. Yes honest mistakes are made, and
poor judgment in a stressful situation happens. But when non-police are the ones doing it, they are punished and go to jail. If a cop makes an honest
mistake and kills someone innocent, his job should have no bearing on the justice: if anything, his or her punishement should be more severe. No one
who kills another human being outside of warfare should ever be allowed the power to kiill again, cop or no.
What bugs me the most about cops is the utter lack of acceptance of reciprocal responsibilities: as a citizen it is my responsibility to behave, not
in accordance with merely the law
, but also in accordance with what is right
, as expressed in the constitution. As a police officer and
a citizen, police have an even higher duty to what is right
as opposed to what is legal
. Laws can be passed by evil persons for evil
purposes, and have been. Look at the canine cops in Selma, Alabama during the protests of the 60's: what those cops did was legal
, but in no
way was it right
, or in accordance with the constitution of either the state or country. Those cops failed their duty as citizens, abusing
One of the most frequent criticisms of criticisms of police brutality caught on video is "You [the public] don't know what happened just before the
start of the video." I agree, and would like to extend that thought back in time. The cop doesn't know what occurred before he got there, either.
Reciprocal responsibility dictates that if a police officer wants the public to cut him some slack and be patient and not jump to conclusions, the
officer must show that same patience and forbearance first
, and not escalate a situation by being overly aggressive upon arrival. Too many
police seem to view patrolling as their primary duty, and want to rush through situations to get back to it. It never seem to occur to some that
SITUATIONS are really what the job is about, and if it takes four hours to resolve it peacefully, then that's time well spent.
A police officer swears to uphold the law, yet far too often we the public observe cases of favoritism, discrimination, brutality, extortion, etc. A
good police officer says, "Yes that happens, but those are just a few bad apples, not all of us are like that, don't judge us based on the actions of
a few". Again I agree and would like to extend the thought: we, the public are also mostly good, and would prefer that police not judge us
based on the actions of a few bad apples in the general populace. However, we can and will judge you on your failure to uphold your oath by allowing
the bad apples to persist, and move freely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and we will judge you for not knowing and abiding by the constitutional
rights of citizens. Absolutely no excuses are acceptable there. None.
Being a cop doesn't absolve anyone of their duties and responsibilities as a citizen. Rather it places an extra burden on them. To the police on ATS,
I ask this question: if the county you worked for passed a law that was clearly unconstitutional, and would be struck down by the courts eventually,
would you or would you not enforce it while it was being challenged, even if you knew the damage done to the victims of it would be irreparable and
cause unnecessary anguish?
As a citizen it is your duty to stop such illegal laws, as a police officer it is your duty to enforce the laws. I submit that if you choose to
enforce illegal laws while hoping they will be overturned, then you have failed your duty as a citizen, and no citizen should ever again trust you or
accept you in polite company, anymore than a soldier who fled the battlefield and caused the deaths or injury of his compatriots should be acccepted:
both have failed their duty and caused unnecessay harm.
A police officer should never have to demand respect with implied threats of any sort, if he or she does, they are psychologically unfit for the job.
If they can't command respect by giving it, by being non-threatening, then they can't expect the public to view them as anything other than a very
real threat to their physical, emotional, and financial security, and are well within their rights to treat them accordingly.
In a civilized society, police must offer respect first, and under no circumstances demand
it. If it is demanded then the case is already
irretrievably lost. Respect must always be EARNED, and must be earned as a group. If a police group has "a few bad apples", then none of that group,
no matter how upright they may be as an individual, is entitled to any respect whatsoever from the public, for by inaction, the good ones are
tolerating lawbreaking, failing in their sworn oaths. How can they ask for respect under such circumstances? From the public's perspective, ANY of
that group could be the bad apple who can and will harm them without excuse or retribution while the good cops look on.
Police work is difficult, yes,it is stressful, yes, but it isn't particularly dangerous compared to many other professions. Non-police are required to
make split-second decisions in stressful situations all the time with lives on the line and never attempt to use it as an excuse for poor judgment:
Try being an air traffic controller sometime, or a trucker. A good bouncer resolves more violent confrontations peaceably in a weekend than most cops
in a month. So please stop trying to imply that police have some superior right to self-defense than the rest of us based on the nature of the job or
the fact that a cop is "trained". Most are very poorly trained from my experience, and I do have experience training people in many fields, including
Cops are just people with any flaws exaggerated by power: the only respect they deserve by right is that accorded to any potentially life-threatening
thing until they prove by their behavior that they deserve personal respect based upon their own respectful behavior. If a cop demands respect from me
because he has a badge, a gun, and the ability and will to screw me over if he chooses, he'll get politeness but no respect, only inner contempt for
being a failed citizen.
edit on 30-1-2011 by apacheman because: sp