Do we really need the Police?

reply to post by theovermensch


NO, we do not need the police, we are the ONLY species on the planet that saves the weak. Personal Responsibility. If someone breaks into my house, I kill them. If someone abducts my child and I find my child and the perp, I kill them. If someone harms my family in any way. I set them straight. The police are nothing more than corporatePOLICY enforcers. The work for the commercial "city" which IS incorporated, incorporated into what you ask........The federal government, giving ownership of ALL property to the federal government INCLUDING but not LIMITED TO your kids, your home, your car and YOU!!!

NO we do not need the police. If we all did our duty as Citizens and Human Beings, there would be no need for the police. The Sheriff is the highest law authority in the land, BUT he does not have authority over responsible and respectful people. He may not stop you for traveling in your auto. he may not ask for a "license" as one is not needed. He is the justice of the county, he is the one who is supposed to sit on the bench and hear cases in a REAL court of law. He hears the case and the jury decides. The Sheriff is merely a referee to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Judges work for the Queen and the British Monarchy. That is a fact.

Sadly, we don't NEED the police, but most of society is to inept and idiotic to understand what civil is. And they want to be taken care of "cradle to grave', what a load of communist bull# and most people don't seeit and don't pay attention, and when you tell them what the real deal is, the think you are nuts because you spent all your time investigating and reading and watching documentaries that tell the real truth, it is easy to see if you use common sense, which most lack...due to the chemicals placed in the food and air by WHO again.....

You haven't really addressed the issue - if firemen and paramedics are exempt from criticism, why aren't the police? If i fall down some steps and break my leg, even if an ambulance is called straight away, the paramedic is not there during my ordeal - that doesn't mean they have failed does it! I'd appreciate comments a little more if the actually were consistent.

reply to post by ComeFindMe

They are there to help after the ordeal not during. that is their job, which they do a really good job, what part of that is so hard to understand.

If the police took pre-emptive steps to prevent crime, people would be up in arms

.

Isn't that what they are trying to do ? invade every aspect of our lives in the name of "keeping us safe or is it themselves safe and the crooks that employ them" and thinking they are above the rest of us, and yes people are getting fed up with their illegal search and shootings.

People are failable beings - therefore, it stands to reason any system they creat is failable.

And this policing system has failed, they have lost sight of what they were supposed to do and became a gang of terrorist.

If individuals continue regurgitating anecdotal rhetoric instead of addressing points saliently raised (specifically, how could a police officer prevent a hitherto sane man going mad and attacking me with a knife) i'd be most grateful.

So again since they can't stop anything what use are they ? none at all.

The only one you can depend on is yourself, don't put your life in the hands of some clown in a uniform and badge, they don't have your interest at heart. they all ready have and agenda and you are just the next mark for them.

Enforcing a set of rules as the police do instantly introduces the notion of opinion, difference and conflict. This is unavoidable both for the police and for any group arising as 'enforcers' (vigilantes or even individuals) through rough or natural justice, with or without a formal justice system.

Most cops don't even know what the laws are and make up their own and have a corrupt legal system their to protect them.

I don't condone Vigilantes, or this shame of a formal justice system, especially when there are two sets of rule, the ones for the average person and then the ones for themselves. you can't have it both ways.

That's why more and more people everyday view cops the way the cops view us as useless and the enemy.

Their powers (legal or illegal) need to be stripped away and re-evaluated, they need to be held accountable for everyone of their actions. They of all people should be held to every letter of the law, since they are the ones claiming to enforce it.

Cops are not exempt neither are the judges or DA's. but yet they think they are.

reply to post by Hawkwind.

Text if you don't believe that taking the police off the streets tomorrow would cause utter havoc then you're not thinking this through

Apart from swat teams and intelligence, the police should be removed from the streets.And the real cause of crime should be attacked at the root of the problems. Vigilante behaviour should be legal in alot of cases. I think you need more faith in the human race though. I dont think there would be utter havok. Look at the London Riots with the EDL helping restore order not the police. The police failed. The public banded together and protected themselves.

Originally posted by theovermensch

Originally posted by cosmicexplorer
reply to post by theovermensch

 

I have been a cop for more than 5 years...what I think we could do in all honesty is reduce the amount of cops and replace them with a sort of security guard. I would say 90% of the calls I take are really not high priority...a security guard can take a report for your missing garden gnome or do a civil standby because you broke up with your girlfriend...or that barking dog next door wont shut up. For the amount of money I make, training I have received, and experience I have I am wasting 90% of it on calls that really have no end result.

We would save money by reducing the police force and hiring part time/ lesser paid security guards and then leave the police for in progress calls/investigations/swat etc.

I have never had to call the police and the only interaction I have had with an officer before I became one was the occasional traffic stop. However, there is a need for them. I was ignorant to how evil people could be until I became a cop. Im gonna hop on my high horse for a minute now....if you are not a cop you probably have very little clue to how bad some areas can be and decayed certain parts of society are. I could go on for hours about the sociological issues with society, but unless youve seen it you probably wouldnt believe me. This job has made me afraid to have a child.

Anyway...I do agree to some extent....also I think that the real criminals with extensive histories should be hammered much..much.. harder than one time offenders.

edit on 7-12-2011 by cosmicexplorer because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2011 by cosmicexplorer because: (no reason given)

The opinion of a Police Officer in case you missed it.

That quote and post by a cop are laughable....THE COP IS THE SECURITY GUARD!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is his job, keep the city secure, it is a corporation that HE works FOR. He is not here for the people, to protect the people, he has THAT job to PROTECT the cities interest. HE IS THE SECURITY GUARD!!!!

THAT is why he stops people and issues citations for violation of the state and CITY code and ordinance. TO BRING MONEY and CONTROL into the city coffers. If he was here to work FOR the PEOPLE, he would stop a speeder and tell them to slow down, no citation needed. If the speed was excessive, JAIL for the perp. But it is all about money and CONTROL.

ALL cops are security guards, the SHERIFF is the LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. He must respect those who elected him. His duty can rise no higher than the natural rights of the Citizen, capital "C", noun, real thing and not citizen, lower case "c" which is a slave!!! Language.

quote]Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Hawkwind.

Text if you don't believe that taking the police off the streets tomorrow would cause utter havoc then you're not thinking this through

Apart from swat teams and intelligence, the police should be removed from the streets.And the real cause of crime should be attacked at the root of the problems. Vigilante behaviour should be legal in alot of cases. I think you need more faith in the human race though. I dont think there would be utter havok. Look at the London Riots with the EDL helping restore order not the police. The police failed. The public banded together and protected themselves.


Ever heard of Problem, Reaction, Solution? Ever read Ayn Rand?

In the line "...when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them; "Miss Rand unveils a vital point.
Government, you see, is in the defense/police/court business, so government's "customers" are military aggressors/criminals/civil litigants. Think about it: if there were no foreign military threat, no crime and no civil lawsuits, the government would have no "customers" and would shrink in size and authority. As Dr. Ferris acidly commented, "Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?" For anyone in government--nothing.

The first priority of government is to maintain a steady supply of "customers." This is easy enough to do. Remember, in the defense/police/court business, government is a monopoly. Nobody else is allowed to compete. A monopoly doesn't have to fight for a larger piece of the pie—it owns the whole pie! It has 100% market share!The only way for a monopoly to grow bigger is to increase the size of the pie; to increase the size of the market itself.

How? By creating more customers! (A baking soda manufacturer did exactly that when the decline of home baking hurt their sales. They went on a marketing offensive and pushed baking soda for alternate uses, such as cleaning, deodorizing, tooth brushing, bathing, etc.--thus increasing the size of the market itself.)

If criminals are the customers of the police and the courts, then how does government create more criminals? Create new laws which apply to new people! Laws which are all but impossible for the public to understand or obey--thus creating criminals. Or, to again quote Dr. Ferris, "But just pass the kind of laws that, can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on the guilt."

Everyone should read her book "Atlas Shrugged". WAKE THE HELL UP!!

Originally posted by daddio
quote]Originally posted by theovermensch
reply to post by Hawkwind.

 

Text if you don't believe that taking the police off the streets tomorrow would cause utter havoc then you're not thinking this through

Apart from swat teams and intelligence, the police should be removed from the streets.And the real cause of crime should be attacked at the root of the problems. Vigilante behaviour should be legal in alot of cases. I think you need more faith in the human race though. I dont think there would be utter havok. Look at the London Riots with the EDL helping restore order not the police. The police failed. The public banded together and protected themselves.

Ever heard of Problem, Reaction, Solution? Ever read Ayn Rand?

In the line "...when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them; "Miss Rand unveils a vital point.
Government, you see, is in the defense/police/court business, so government's "customers" are military aggressors/criminals/civil litigants. Think about it: if there were no foreign military threat, no crime and no civil lawsuits, the government would have no "customers" and would shrink in size and authority. As Dr. Ferris acidly commented, "Who wants a nation of law abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?" For anyone in government--nothing.

The first priority of government is to maintain a steady supply of "customers." This is easy enough to do. Remember, in the defense/police/court business, government is a monopoly. Nobody else is allowed to compete. A monopoly doesn't have to fight for a larger piece of the pie—it owns the whole pie! It has 100% market share!The only way for a monopoly to grow bigger is to increase the size of the pie; to increase the size of the market itself.

How? By creating more customers! (A baking soda manufacturer did exactly that when the decline of home baking hurt their sales. They went on a marketing offensive and pushed baking soda for alternate uses, such as cleaning, deodorizing, tooth brushing, bathing, etc.--thus increasing the size of the market itself.)

If criminals are the customers of the police and the courts, then how does government create more criminals? Create new laws which apply to new people! Laws which are all but impossible for the public to understand or obey--thus creating criminals. Or, to again quote Dr. Ferris, "But just pass the kind of laws that, can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on the guilt."

Everyone should read her book "Atlas Shrugged". WAKE THE HELL UP!!


I have a thread on Dystopian Books -www.abovetopsecret.com...
I think we covered most of them.If anyone is looking for something beyond 1984 it would be in the thread.It is interesting how many books warn of the future we are living.

I havent read Atlas Shrugged yet but its on top of my reading list. By your post it sounds like it relates to the thread perfectly

reply to post by guitarist


I'm unsure how to multi-quote, so apologies for my potentially archaic approach!

You say "They are there to help after the ordeal not during. that is their job, which they do a really good job, what part of that is so hard to understand." Now come on, lets be fair here - thats not correct. Firefighters fight a fire AS it burns not AFTER. Paramedics treat a person WHILST injured, not AFTER. They are there to help as soon as they can. Forget before, during and after - they help as soon as they can. Just like the police. So if this is a critique of the police, please acknowledge it also as a critique of other emergency services - or don't use it at all.

So, to clarify, you are annoyed they are trying to pre-empt crime and also that they only react to crime. So, what exactly can they do?

You would do well to remember that any person, group or organisation has an agenda...from survival to domination, an agenda nonetheless.

The natural progression of the question the OP proposed is "If we don;t need the police, what do we need?" - the answer of course is that there is no solution, no valid alternative. Self-regulation doesn't work - because that means in a population of ten million people, you essentially have ten million sets of regulations.

Guitarist, you make some interesting points, as do others here (what i'm about to suggest doesnt apply to you). What is clear is that a number of negative posters simply detest the police - presumably, as an extension of 'TPTB' - or simply authority itself. Daddy issues indeed!

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Well it is After, You don't get treated for an injury before it happens , its "After", You can't put a fire out before it started only "After" the fire has started.

Cops claim to protect , Protect is before or during not "After" and that is being fair

Originally posted by guitarist
reply to post by ComeFindMe

 

Well it is After, You don't get treated for an injury before it happens , its "After", You can't put a fire out before it started only "After" the fire has started.

Cops claim to protect , Protect is before or during not "After" and that is being fair

No, its during. A firefighter cannot put out a fire AFTER it has burnt, because there is nothing to put out. A fire still exists physically after it has started. You get treated for an injury whilst you have the injury.

Cops do indeed protect and protection is indeed, by and large a preventative measure. However, as I indicated, people get up in arms when the police try to prevent crime (e.g. in London, stop and search is a controversial measure). If some or all of the populace will not allow preventative measures to be taken, or will disagree and fight preventative measures to the extent they are no longer effective, then blame lies solely with that populace.

Protection is indeed also during - so when i'm attacked in the street and brawling with someone and as he chokes me, a policeman steps up and pulls him off me, that police man has intervened DURING a crime and STOPPED that crime.

The short answer is: Yes

However, we certainly DO NOT need the police-thug force we currently have in Amerika.

In the 1950's we had local cops that were "servants of the citizens". We need to fire all the current crop of thugs, go back to the 1950's example and then hire "servants of the citizens". Don't hold your breath on that suggestion.

How many times have we heard of someone calling the police-thugs for one reason or another and the person who calls them ends up being arrested themselves?

Most reasonable people can handle security for themselves in many cases. I make it a point to never call the police-thugs.

Originally posted by romanmel
The short answer is: Yes

However, we certainly DO NOT need the police-thug force we currently have in Amerika.

In the 1950's we had local cops that were "servants of the citizens". We need to fire all the current crop of thugs, go back to the 1950's example and then hire "servants of the citizens". Don't hold your breath on that suggestion.

How many times have we heard of someone calling the police-thugs for one reason or another and the person who calls them ends up being arrested themselves?

Most reasonable people can handle security for themselves in many cases. I make it a point to never call the police-thugs.

Interesting - I wonder if perhaps the geography of any such answer to this question would affect it? I detect - very much - that Americans are a lot more unhappier with their police than those from, say, the UK. I would love to know what the breakdown of Yes/No answers by country would be!

Originally posted by definity
colombine? crips v bluds? motorway pile ups? murders? drugs? child/woman traffiking? rape?

Colombine : They commited suicide. The police didn't kill them.

Crips vs Bloods : They never stop gang shootings. Ever. They do however, come after everything is over.

Motorway Pile Ups : Huh?

Murders : That they commit.

Drugs : That they plant on people.

Child/Woman Traffiking : US Customs stops this, not police.

Rape : That they do.

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Sorry got cut off.

So, to clarify, you are annoyed they are trying to pre-empt crime and also that they only react to crime. So, what exactly can they do?

I'm not annoyed just stating they are useless and don't need them.
Since they can't prevent what good are they ?.

90% of the people i know pick up the piece and move on the best they can. and don't want or need the cops interference.

Since cops aggravate most situations if not all, from lack of understanding or just out of arrogance and trying to ruin someones day to make themselves better about their petty existence.

You would do well to remember that any person, group or organisation has an agenda...from survival to domination, an agenda nonetheless.

Well cops don't need a agenda of dominance do they. again just do the job you are paid to do. but they don't seem to get that.

Sure survival should be on everyone's agenda, but by knowingly pitting yourself against other people to make their lives miserable your chances of survival will diminish, it makes you a target more so not a friend or someone you'd go for, for help, Since your not part of their agenda.

The natural progression of the question the OP proposed is "If we don;t need the police, what do we need?" - the answer of course is that there is no solution, no valid alternative. Self-regulation doesn't work - because that means in a population of ten million people, you essentially have ten million sets of regulations.

I agree with you there, There is no easy answer.

Look, again if we could all take several steps back and look in what has happened and weed out the greed and corruption on all levels and get back to some honest system where cops and the legal system followed the rules and didn't keep changing them to benefit themselves, I wouldn't be here posting against the need of them , I'd be praising them.(now i'am in Fantasy Land)

Guitarist, you make some interesting points, as do others here (what i'm about to suggest doesnt apply to you). What is clear is that a number of negative posters simply detest the police - presumably, as an extension of 'TPTB' - or simply authority itself. Daddy issues indeed!

Thanks ,

I don't hate anybody, i try to forgive, since we are only human, we all make mistake, but then again if you don't learn from those mistakes you've out grown your usefulness,

There is a line in the sand and when you cross it, you know what you are doing and what you are doing has any use for the good or is it all about who cares i'm above the law and i'll do what i want. Then i have a problem and has nothing to do with hatred.

I always try to stay on the right side on the line, I know right from wrong, and when someone wants me to follow them over the line and have no regard for laws or welfare of others because of greed, corruption or what ever the reason, my choice is not to listen to them and not to follow. I never was a follower, I never cared about peer pressure or to cover up the misdeeds of others.

I never had a chance to have daddy issues, LOL, my dad passed away when i was 3.

Well great debating with you, stay safe and i hope you never find yourself in a position that you need help that may never come.

reply to post by guitarist



And to yourself too, very enjoyable. I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.

Stay safe.

Typical sheltered white bread middle class idiots suggesting they don't need anything that is outside their sheltered existance.

Don't need a cop? sure...well, keep thinking that when some crackhead breaks into your house and steals all your stuff to sell it on the streets.
Oh, you don't have to worry about that because of the gated community and your 5k alarm system in your house.

Not everyone is fortunate as you though.

Perhaps we don't need gates...I don't have one and never needed one, therefore they are useless..perhaps we don't need alarm systems considering I live way out in the middle of nowhere with dogs..so therefore all everyone else has to do is move out in the middle of nowhere and get some dogs.

eyes are rolling here...

You typically have a bad experience with a police officer if you in fact are the target of the police officer...stop being a idiotic criminal if you don't like that experience.

I have had traffic tickets...and you know what...I deserved them, and they were right in doing their job..I didn't cry out about how I am a victim, I cursed myself for going over the speed limit.
Only once did I get accused wrongly about some infraction I really didn't do, and I went to court and had it semi-sorted out (word against word). That particular individual officer was a bit of a bytch, but as a whole, they are just people wanting to go home and goof off like the rest of us...doing their 9-5.

You want the police to change? join up then and be the change...then get frustrated when some twits online paints you as bad as the rest whenever they get a traffic ticket.

Instead of asking ourselves whether we need cops or not we should be asking ourselves whether we the need the system (our social structure and ecnomic model) that makes having a police force an absolutely necessity. The more complex a society gets the more complex it's problems become and the more disfunctional it's proposed answers are. There is absolutely no way around having a large police force in mega-cities (which are a drain in it's self but that's another subject) and is a direct result of the complexities of having such a large concentrated amount of people living in a cramped area. It is also a symptom of a model based on material wealth with seperation rank and class.

In smaller towns and villages 90% of the time a police force isn't needed as the people themselves usually do a good job of keeping order themselves. That's why in urban environments most people are against the second amendment, one because it makes it easier for criminals to gain access and two because the populace gives all their power away to the police force to protect them. In towns and villages it's usually backwards where the police force isn't as visible and the citizens arm themselves to take a more proactive approach. Not saying one is better than the other because of course that depends directly on the environment you live in.

Originally posted by theovermensch
I think its a good question. I have never had a Police Officer help me in my entire life. I have had Police annoy me for no reason many times. I have been pulled over for Random Breath Teasts. Issued a fine for a minor traffic infringment (got out of it ) Have had them try to put an AVO on me ( represented myself in court and beat it ). I have had two undercover Police stop me shortly after I left a Mall and they asked to look inside my bag at my peronal private property. ( stopped them ) Again,not once have the Police assisted me in any way. I have never called the police to resolve any problem. I think people should work things out for themselves.

I think my experience with Police would be the same with most people. Even on the off-chance you have recieved help I am sure it would be outwieghed by the amount of times Police have hassled you. Another thing is they always have this front of superiority and are generally arrogant and aggresive. They do not exist to help,rather they exist to raise revenue for governments and to protect the rich.

Do you agree?
Couldnt we do without the Police?

I would normally leave a stupid thread alone, but you really pushed the wrong buttons. Let me tell you something. One of my family members was shot and killed and it was a stupid case of getting the wrong house. The people were looking to kill someone else but went to the wrong damned house. The POLICE worked tirelessly for months to solve that murder. I'm not talking about taking shifts working on it, I'm talking about the same detectives there at 8AM and 11PM until they solved the case.

That alone makes up for any traffic ticket I have ever gotten, which by the way were my fault you whiney sniveling OP. If you don't think we need a police force, you don't live in reality land anymore. Anyone can be pulled over for suspicion of DWI. I don't care one bit if you don't like that. Get stopped on a traffic violation? Too bad.

I am eternally greatful to the police force that are out there putting their lives on the line while your whiny azz complains like a punk about it.

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
Through all of time and humanity, you are indeed correct - hell hath no better representation than a DUI for one beer.

Simple solution - don't drink - then you can drive. Or drink, but don't drive. You can't pick and choose laws to follow and obey. So its your call. But just don't complain and call it "hell" when you get busted. Aren't you embarassed by that post?

Having cancer, losing a loved one, being harmed...nup....thats nothing on a DUI!

Your words remind me of someone psychotic.

I am not embarressed for my post.

Now I can tell your a cop lol.

Giving a DUI for one year says that you believe the next man can't drive from having one beer, I didn't say I did it. You are a disappointment to humanity to think that a man deserves all that trouble for drinking one beer and driving. It is ultimately foolish, and it is being a trader to your own human kind. Having a human being sell out like that, that is hell, not what the person is feeling when they have there life taken from them for having one beer. You thought I meant that when I said hell, but like you were mistaken about my words you are mistaken about everything in this subject.

For the record we all know there are many ways to describe hell on earth. It makes me want to cry tears for those who have suffered, so I wish people wouldn't throw things at me like that.

I feel police are needed, but I also feel their revenue shouldnt be generated by harassing people. Ever see more cops at the end of the moth "trolling" around looking to reach their months quota? maybe if I was saved by a cop in a life or death situation I would have more respect for them.
I lost respect for their job description when my car broke down at a green light and I had to push it by myself to a nearby gas station while a cop just stood their watching.

Originally posted by greyer

Your words remind me of someone psychotic.

I am not embarressed for my post.

Now I can tell your a cop lol.

Giving a DUI for one year says that you believe the next man can't drive from having one beer, I didn't say I did it. You are a disappointment to humanity to think that a man deserves all that trouble for drinking one beer and driving. It is ultimately foolish, and it is being a trader to your own human kind. Having a human being sell out like that, that is hell, not what the person is feeling when they have there life taken from them for having one beer. You thought I meant that when I said hell, but like you were mistaken about my words you are mistaken about everything in this subject.

For the record we all know there are many ways to describe hell on earth. It makes me want to cry tears for those who have suffered, so I wish people wouldn't throw things at me like that.

edit on 7-12-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)

Not sure where your from, but in the US they set a legal limit, if your over that legal limit...your guilty of DUI. Sorry situation put you in such hell.
I have a close friend who was in the car with her mother (who was killed on impact), and watched her husband die in her arms......I wonder if her hell compares to your hell. (since none of them had been drinking, just the guy in the other lane that hit them head on)

(some times we need police to keep people from doing things they know are stupid)