It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Do we really need the Police?

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddio
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.....


And another wise comment!




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I would just like to add, every time ive asked for help by a police officer they've said "theirs nothing we can do" but as soon as it comes to making a profitable gain OUT COME THE GUNS.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
A wise old man once told me that "if everyone used good manners there would be no need for police or jails."

As I got older I realized he was 100% correct.



Law enforcement is a business.
It is designed to aquire budget funds.
City ordinances, etc, all are designed to generate profit for the department.
Ploicemen are no longer officers of law an order, they are just officers of "the law" which was writtent to aquire funds from you, the public.


Funny thing is, you voted these people in office under the lies that they will "protect and serv you".
The only thing they protect and serve is the budget.

\



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BadNinja68
 





Text A wise old man once told me that "if everyone used good manners there would be no need for police or jails.


Thats a good point. Most cowards have no manners.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ComeFindMe
Your post was sensationalist at best and the sarcasm was used in light of your "actual hell" comment. I'm still none the wiser as to how someone can be a "trader to your own human kind" - or even if taken literally, how on earth that makes sense.

If the law is that drinking one beer takes you over the legal limit, then you must face the consequences of that act if you are found guilty. Whether that law is just or not is a different topic - the fact you have willingly broke it is the matter in question. I'm afraid i'm not a cop - believe it or not, some people actually see the merit in the enforcement of law. Not that being a cop would make my opinion any less valid - or do you accord people an opinion or worth dependent on their profession?



Congratulations for being the first poster on here after all this time who really upset me in real life, lol. Never did I come to that situation because after all this is an internet forum.
edit on 7-12-2011 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Fact is we do need FRIENDLY law enforcement, otherwise you will run into a situation where we will be run by corporate mafia and the likes.

However I also believe there should be stricter guidelines as to who we recruit and what should be done to them if they overstep their authority and abuse their Privileged power we have given to them.

The training should be extended to include, "how to deal with non violent people".


As much as we love to blame the police for various stuff, fact is, its not the police, it's the corrupt policy makers at fault a lot of the time.


Situation:

If a crime is committed, the people say "this wouldn't have happened if we just had more police".

So more police are hired.

Next people say, I don't want my taxes to go up.

So taxes stay down, but how do you pay for all the police the people are demanding?

Set ticketing quotas, and raise the rates.

but it's still not enough?

How about we make bogus, unimaginable city ordinances that no one in their right minds could 100% follow then ticket the hell out of the uninformed and weak.

Welcome to America Today.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   


You don't get any understanding to yourself and your perceptions by writing that post, and your post doesn't get any sympathy from me, because it seems like you are trying to defend a police officer for choosing that job.


I wasn't looking for any sympathy. That was posted for the "the cops always harrasing me for nothin'" crowd. Very rarely does a cop stop anyone without a purpose. A police officer has to have reasonable suspicion or see a crime in progress to stop a car. They only thing they can do if they detain you outside of the car is perform a Terry search unless they have probable cause.

That means they can pat you down for weapons. They aren't going in your pockets. Now if you consent to a search, or they have probable cause to believe that you have or are committing a crime and are hiding evidence on your body, they can search you. That is because the car that you are being transported in gives you a chance to get out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred or destroy evidence.

Too much time goes in to writing reports and justifying your actions as a cop. Going around and "going in people's pockets" is a waste of time and too much work for the risk of losing your job or derailing your career. Not too mention, that having to take time away from your family to go sit in court for hours to watch a case get kicked out is not something anyone wants to do.

I will freely admit that in LA, NYC, and Chicago the police forces do not reflect the national average. They have come a long way. However, they are still rife with the corruption and politics that occur when such an organization gets too big. If you are from certain parts of LA I can see what formed your view. I would also say you need to get out of that human petri dish.




I have no hate in me at all, somebody with no hate cannot be a cop because they would not empty a hard working individuals pockets for a moving violation.


Well, hello there. Nice to see the level of animosity you hold for your fellow human beings. Yet, you say you have no hate in your heart. I think you need to learn a bit about true introspection and taking responsibility for yourself. You might be able to let go of some of the anger.

It sounds to me like you got busted for DUI or DWI. Then when the cop pulled you, your anger came through. He performed a terry search and you got all kinds of butt hurt about it. Now you walk around spouting a bunch of over dramatic statements about cops spitting in your face and being evil. It helps take the responsibility away from the fact that you got caught drinking and got punished. It was the evil and ungodly cops that are too blame for the fact that you got caught breaking the law.

I could be off base. That is how it sounds after reading your post.


reply to post by greyer
 



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxy1
 





Ever see more cops at the end of the moth "trolling" around looking to reach their months quota?


That is an urban myth for the most part. I have never known a department to issue a quota or worked with an officer that worked for a department that did. I will not say that it doesn't happen. I will say it is not wide spread.

You will usually see more cops from about the 27th through the 7th because a lot of people get paid on the 1st and 30th. Plus, most government checks are issued in that time frame. With the influx of cash during that time period there tends to be a rise in DWIs, drug related violence, domestic disputes, violence, and general mayhem. That means more cops are visible to act as a deterent and to ensure the man power to respond to calls.




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.


You know why that happens? Because people do stupid things like sue the department because the cop's duty belt scuffed the paint while he was helping out.

Seriously, I have seen a person try to sue the department for a a bent chrome rim. The cop was helping push the guy's car. The complaintant was steering the car. He said the cop did not warn him about a pot hole ahead of time. The pot hole damaged his rim. So, he wanted the department to pay for a $2,300 rim and a tire. He was steering. He should have seen the pot hole. That doesn't matter. He still wanted the department to pay because the cop "showed negligence" by failing to warn the complaintant and pushing the car in the general direction of the pot hole.

Incidents like that make it much easier for the department to say, don't assist with vehicles that are broken down or damaged. It saves them a lot of money and hassle.
edit on 8-12-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BadNinja68
 





City ordinances, etc, all are designed to generate profit for the department.


Actually, no they aren't. Fines for violations of ordinances go back to the city and not the department. In most areas the police and fire departments are having their budgets slashed. Literally thousands of officers have been laid off since the economic crash of 2008. It seems kind of funny to me that preliminary reports show violent crime going up for the first time in 30 years.




Funny thing is, you voted these people in office under the lies that they will "protect and serv you".


I've never met any police officer besides a Sheriff that was voted in. They don't decide local laws and ordinances. That is up to the politicians that you elect. Do you even understand how the system works?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Foxy1
 


That is an urban myth for the most part. I have never known a department to issue a quota or worked with an officer that worked for a department that did. I will not say that it doesn't happen. I will say it is not wide spread.



You are Joking right?

Do a quick Google check and you will find out otherwise.

Here is a recent article by the LA Times

My best friend is a police officer, and he has recieved multiple raises and promotions because of his high ticket volume.

Do I blame him, yes and no, yes because all he cares about is getting that promotion or raise, and no because he works in a flawed system where the ones who make the city the most money, get promoted and a raise, and won't lose their Jobs in a time of cut backs.

As much as I would like to blame the police, the fact is they are just the cities cronies.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Oh and before you say "i said Not wide spread". Take a look at which officers in the departments are promoted first.

If your department doesn't work that way, then good for them, but most do.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by tw0330
 


So, I work in a department with officers that have worked previously in Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Texas, and Virginia. I have worked side by side with cops from multiple departments and agencies. Yet you want to tell me what is common based on one friend and an LA Times article.

As I said earlier, LA, NY, and Chi do not represent most American police forces. Most forces don't care about persuing "revenue generators." The money does not come back to the department. It either goes to the city, county, or state. The department sees absolutely no benifit from the money. In fact police and fire departments usually fall right behind libraries when it comes time to cut spending. The only time you are going to see a huge push for a department to go after "revenue" tickets is when it is controlled more by politicians than the police. LA, NY, and Chicago are great examples of that. In those places getting ahead in the department is more about who you know and which clique you belong too.

I actually know a local Sheriff that told his deputies not to make a traffic stop unless they believed the person was DUI, or they posed a great danger to others.

What a lot of people don't realize is that simple traffic stops are how a lot of wanted criminals are caught. An officer in my department pulled over a guy with no headlights on at 11pm. His intention was to issue a warning but he ran the plate and the driver's license number. (We have to write a report for every stop we make and attach the print out that confirms no wants or warrants.) There was a be-on-the-look-out on the license plate. The car had been reported for "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle" by the owner. That isn't a big deal, it just means the driver had access to the car but was using it without permission or longer than he was supposed to. The big part was he had multiple warants in another state. He was wanted for owning a location for the production of methamphetamine, illegal distribution of narcotics or a controlled substance on school property, strong arm robbery, domestic assault, failure to appear in court, and crossing state lines to avoid prosecution or arrest. The driver was arrested and is on his way back to face trial.

Another officer caught a guy wanted for violation of his parole and failure to appear in court. He was in jail for slicing his girlfriends face up. They gave him parole and then he was arrested for indecent liberties with a minor. He made bail before the court date. After which he decided to hit the road. How did he get caught? He was driving back and forth in a neighborhood with a school. The guy and the car looked suspicious. So, when he made a left turn with no blinker the cop pulled him and ran the numbers. The information came back and he was arrested on the spot.

Turns out he was waiting on his "girlfriend" and her cousin. They were supposed to leave school after second period and meet up with him. He was going to take them back to her place for a threesome. He was 28 and the girls were 14 and 16.

Traffic stops aren't usually about the money. The police officer's don't usually see any benifit from it. They are usually because the person is breaking the law. Sometimes. they are performed because it is a great prevenetive measure. You catch criminals and you deter them to an extent. A lot of criminals will tell others not to do something in an area because it is too hot.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Or just a power trip

but anyways

Thanks Mike. Guess that most cops are just jackasses then
edit on 8-12-2011 by tw0330 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reasonable suspicion and probable cause are both very broad terms and don't have to hold much water to be honest.

When I was in college, they taught us what "probable cause" is (in terms of conservation law enforcement) and it could be as simple as having a truck with a covered bed while you were driving at night past hunting hours.

As for reasonable suspicion, that can be as simple as your headlights crossing the center line for a split second.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
No .the only cop i ever had a interaction with in sf after geting off the n train pushed me up against a wall with my hand held behind my back when i asked him why he had assaulted me he said becaus i walked by muni fare inspectors and ignored him after showing him my proof of payment expired / empty clipper card -2$ he asked me if i was on drugs i said yes the coffie in my other hand when i maintained calm and gave him my reasoning for ignoring him and fare inspectors he told me to comply with requests by fare inspectors told me i looked like an inteligent guy and asked me if i had any warents i said no and he took down my info from my state id he then asked me why the fare inspectors where there i said to get a pay check then i got a citation from fare inspectors walked away recycled my ticket prayed to loose my anger and took the bus 2 stops away ...with above expired ticket
~



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by usernameconspiracy
 


##SNIPPED## Let's pretend that you make a valid point that people somehow have a "right to passage" and that right is somehow being violated when someone speeds "while strung out on drugs". Are you arguing in favor of PRE-crime? You think people should be punished BEFORE they've actually done something punishable, based on nothing but probability and likelihood?

Sure the guy in my ridiculously over-the-top (and taken far too literally) example MIGHT kill or injure someone by driving his vehicle--so might anyone else driving at any given time for any number of reasons. In all cases, the flip side of that coin is that they may NOT harm anyone or place anyone at risk at all. Our criminal justice system says that we are "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". Have you forgotten that little nuance, or do you simply disagree with it? Since no one at all has been harmed, and no property at all has been damaged you've proven the jackass in my ridiculous example guilty of NOTHING except increasing a probability--so what exactly are you punishing him for???

Do you think people should be punished if their actions increase probabilities of injustices (without any way of knowing if the injustice was ever actually going to happen)? That is a slippery and dangerous slope. Someone in a bad mood is more likely to commit a homicide than someone in a good mood...should we punish people for being in bad moods??? If so...someone who lost their job is more likely to be in a bad mood than someone who still has their job...should we punish people for losing their jobs? A hungry person is more likely to steal food from you than a comfortable person...should we punish people for being hungry?

Furthermore...since you are intent to focus on DRIVING--which is the only area of my ultra-silly example that might possibly lead to someone else being injured--let's just take driving completely out of the equation so maybe you can grasp my point without being such a literal tight-ass. Here is a revised version of my statement to make the point in a way you might be able to grasp (although I have my doubts, and by your logic--since there is a likelihood you won't get it I should deny you the opportunity):

Let's face it: whenever a cop interrupts your day, issues you a fine, detains you, or arrests you--he is depriving you of your unalienable rights. This violation can only be justified if it follows an incident in which you violated someone's rights--thus an equal trade off. I don't care if you are SITTING IN YOUR HOUSE--WHEN A COP SPOTS YOU THROUGH THE WINDOW smoking a joint, drinking a beer [at the age of 20], banging a hooker, possessing crack, and carrying a loaded gun in your sock--If you have not violated anyone else's rights in any way, what gives the police the right to violate yours?

There...now I've listed a bunch of things the police would GLADLY, EAGERLY, and JOYFULLY punish the jackass in my example for--without anyone's rights having been violated yet, and no realistic reason to believe that anyone would be in imminent danger of any kind. (Just to be clear before you go all captain anal on me again) The person in this example plans on staying home for the night, has no children in the house (because people like you LOVE worrying about "the children"), the hooker is completely consensual, and he carries the gun for self-protection ONLY with no intention or desire to ever use it. What gives the police the right to violate HIS unalienable rights, in the absence of any similar violation on his part?




posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   




Now now, no need for nastiness! I believe that 'usernameconspiracy' has made some perfectly valid points.

Regarding your comments, in all the examples you provide the law has been broken. Like it or loathe it, the law is there - get over it. I'm afraid its not as simple as taking a situation and presuming there is no associated or collateral damage from it.

How do you know rights haven't been violated in reaching that situation? Where - or who - were the drugs bought from? Many women in the sex trade are forced into it against their will - even if it was consensual, how would an office establish this - see if she was smiling? Carrying a weapon - not just a weapon in fact, a gun - does the guy have a license? What does he determine as protection?

The guy in question does not have an unalienable right to pick and choose which laws to obey and which laws to break. Its very easy to construct an extremely detailed scenario where the issues you disagree with seem particularly contentious - its clear however, that any real world basis for some or all of these situations would lead to the application of law being the correct way forward.

Anyway, if he wants to do that why doesnt he just draw the curtains?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ComeFindMe
 


I actually appreciate your comment, but (not surprisingly) I find your logic to be a bit flawed. Your assertion that the "law" should be enforced simply because it exists--without questioning its validity--is the exact same kind of mindless adherence that brought us the holocaust. Every one of those Nazi soldiers was enforcing "laws" and obeying orders.

I hate how people always feel the need to build straw-men to make arguments like yours. Your prostitution argument is a prime example. I'll concede that some girls are forced into prostitution against their will. This is already illegal, just as it would be to force someone to have sex, pick cotton, empty their pockets, remain in a confined space, or anything else. How on earth does criminally FORCING people into prostitution against their will justify criminalizing consensual/voluntary action. They aren't even close to the same thing. although... the more I think about this logic, the more I like it. The government forces me to pay taxes against my will... perhaps we should make it illegal to pay taxes (even if I wish to do so voluntarily)!!!!!!!!!! Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!

You may believe that the cartoonish guy in my scenario has no right to pick and choose which laws to follow. I believe that our government has no right to pick and choose which unalienable rights they can strip away from us. I'm apparently not as willing as you to presume that our government knows how to live my life better than I do. I'm quite comfortable making all of my own decisions for myself, anticipating the results of those decisions, and accepting full responsibility for the consequences of my own actions.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by MiloNickels
 


I simply disagree (for the most part) with you. Now I certainly do not care what you do inside your own home, but once you are outside of your home, you have to respect everyone else's rights as well. Trust me, I have a young daughter. If you lived next door and walked outside smoking a joint, you get one chance from me. I tell you to keep it inside the house because I don't need someone smoking pot outside when there are or likely to be, kids outside. You don't have any "right" to do so, as it is an illegal action. I also inform you that this is your one free pass. Nobody has the "right" to do something that is against the law.

Do it again and I violate your rights (in your opinion) when I have you arrested. If you are selling it, you don't even get the freebie. Your rights (or the person in the example) do not trump anyone elses. The problem lies in that you think they do. You don't think you have infringed on anyone elses rights unless harm comes to them.



new topics




 
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join