Apparently police departments are having a hard time finding candidates...

a reply to: Unity_99

I'm certain officers have been killed by other officers, but those are extreme cases and not really as common as you make it sound. There are plenty of ways to get rid of an officer without ever laying a hand on him/her, and those are far more common than outright murder.

This is an illusion to ask for more funding. No Law Enforcement Agency in the country has a "hiring problem", especially during this never ending, middle class, "recession/depression". What they REALLY have is a "screening problem".

So, what does this mean?

It means that there are PLENTY of viable candidates that are passed over LONG before they get to really "interview" for the position or attend the academy. What I want to see is the total number of people denied entry right AFTER submitting their "suitability essay/personality exam", which is usually submitted after the preliminary background check, but before the physical fitness test, panel interview and heading off to the academy . I'll bet 99 out of 100 candidates are rejected at this phase, despite passing the civil service test for LEO's. Lets not fool ourselves, these guys want "yes-men", make no mistake about it. What they are really saying to the funding entities, is this:

"We are having trouble finding suitable yes-men and need more money to do so with more efficient and faster screening methods, but at the same time, we have PLENTY of people that could pass all the tests for entry if given the chance, but do not have the propensity to be yes-men"

I will quote something said by InverseLookingGlass in another thread on ATS. Once you take it in, understand it and accept it, it becomes VERY easy to understand why Law Enforcement Agencies don't have any people with good consciences serving within them today and even if good people with consciences try to enact grass-root change from within, they will simply be denied entry to the agency or are quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means:

LEOs are in place to do the following:

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for their department, their union and the local government employing them.
4. Protecting commercial interests of large corporations
5. Protecting the private property of those whom own the most property in their city and contribute politically
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

They've been totally co-opted, insulated from consequences and the citizens are picking up the tab.

We should all be trying to defund departments, instead of trying to prosecute their employees or change laws. It's perfectly legal and solves the bad apple problem MUCH faster.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Unity_99
Murdered? I think that's a stretch. Run out of the force? Yes. Threatened with slow backup or no backup? Yes. Given crap details and assignments? Yes.

I agree with Unity_99, but I wouldn't call it murder. I'd say they just let the "disliked officers" get shot or stabbed, while they stand back and watch. Or the "disliked officers" gets bombarded with "official warnings" and are drummed out administratively. Maybe even the DA's get involved and threaten them with prosecution unless they sign an NDA and resign quietly.

a reply to: boohoo

You said that "Law Enforcement Agencies don't have any people with good consciences serving within them today."

I know you don't know me but that means that you believe I do not have a good conscience.

Thanks for being prejudice against me.

Further empirical evidence backing my observations. Thank you.

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: onequestion

Being a police officer OR wanting to be one at this point in time is masochistic.

The police uphold the law! The law is created by politicians, so why are we all focused on hating the police?

I totally agree. If the politicians are corrupt the police will inevitably be corrupt. Some will see this need of police officers a way to express their personal views as what they perceive the government going towards today and they will be corrupt going in.

Ultimately if the government had good intentions then the police would have good intentions. But that it's not the case and should not be expected. We are on the hero's journey and we've been here before.

a reply to: boohoo

your reply to me is pretty much exactly what I had already said so.....not sure if you're agreeing with Unity_99 as well as me or just him and not me?

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: boohoo

You said that "Law Enforcement Agencies don't have any people with good consciences serving within them today."

I know you don't know me but that means that you believe I do not have a good conscience.

Thanks for being prejudice against me.

Further empirical evidence backing my observations. Thank you.

Typical cop, double-speak, doing their best at "Controlling dissenting narratives". You actually prove my point, more than you defend yours. HERE IS THE FULL SENTENCE I WROTE:

"it becomes VERY easy to understand why Law Enforcement Agencies don't have any people with good consciences serving within them today and even if good people with consciences try to enact grass-root change from within, they will simply be denied entry to the agency or are quickly removed from the ranks through various legal and administrative means"

a reply to: boohoo

Humor me.

Perhaps I am not as intelligent as you.

You stated "it is easy to understand why agencies DON'T have any people with good consciences serving within and EVEN if there were (is that not implying that there are most likely none)..."

What am I missing? It sounds like you believe strongly that there are no police with good consciences.

I am not trying to be a jerk.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: boohoo

Humor me.

Perhaps I am not as intelligent as you.

You stated "it is easy to understand why agencies DON'T have any people with good consciences serving within and EVEN if there were (is that not implying that there are most likely none)..."

What am I missing. It sounds like you believe strongly that there are no police with good consciences.

I am not trying to be a jerk.

Is it true or false that Law Enforcement Agencies are likely do the following whenever possible (note, I wouldn't suggest that half of these things are true about fire departments, for example):

1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for their department, their union and the local government employing them.
4. Protecting commercial interests of large corporations
5. Protecting the private property of those whom own the most property in their city and contribute politically
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.

a reply to: boohoo

I asked you to clarify what you said in regards to there not being any police officers with good conscience.

Regardless I will humor you.

1. Yes I like to protect myself for two reasons. A. If I don't protect myself I can't protect anyone else. B. I like my life and want to live. Should I not be able to protect myself?

2. Not quite sure what the context to this statement is but yes I would like to get paid more but I won't do anything illegal or immoral to make it happen.

3. I do generate some revenue. That being said I think people would be surprised how much money from a ticket actually goes to the police department. Most funds go to police academies, DUI victim funds, and domestic violence victim funds. Just to note 99% of the few citations I write are written warnings. I hardly every write a citation unless a serious violation occurred. Also we do ask for restitution from people convicted of certain crimes. I guess we don't have to do that, but that helps to fund some parts of the police department. Not my call though. That being said I do not have an issue with the police department asking for restitution from an armed robber.

4. Yes of course I do my best to protect commercial interests and large corporations, just as I do my best to protect the citizens. Should I not provide service to everyone?

5. Again of course I do my best to protect the private property of EVERYONE. Should I not do my best to protect EVERYONE? Even if it includes the wealthy?

6. Not quite sure how I control any kind of dissenting narrative. You are freely typing what you want as we speak. Am I controlling your opinion?

I guess if doing all the above means I don't have a good conscience then I am guilty.

a reply to: boohoo

Okay so you feel that I shouldn't respond to a burglary alarm at a Harris or Lockheed building because they are a large corporation? Those are the only big corporations in my city of 100,000.

So if a person happens to own a majority of property in my city and is a victim of crime I shouldn't help them?

How is that fair? How is that equal?

Also I wasn't the cop who pepper sprayed that man. Matter of fact I have never pepper sprayed, tased, or shot a person in my entire career (10 years).

But that is fine you have tried and convicted me without even knowing me. I am becoming very used to it.

Carry on

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

1) you can't protect yourself. That basic human right does not apply to you.

2) you are not allowed to seek the most compensation possible for doing a job. Do it for free or minimum wage, that's it.

3) monetary penalties for crime and/or infractions are unacceptable. The fact that most of that money goes to worthy causes is immaterial.

4&5) you are not allowed to protect anybody or their property, to include your own, at any time, ever.

6) if you express an opinion different from others you are attempting to control them purely because you have a badge and whatever you do is oppressive.

Failure to comply with all of these puts you on equal footing with any Gestapo agent in Nazi Germany, as well as any concentration camp guard or doctor.

Broke that all down for your Torq. No links needed.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
I wasn't the cop who pepper sprayed that man. Matter of fact I have never pepper sprayed, tased, or shot a person in my entire career (10 years).

But that is fine you have tried and convicted me without even knowing me. I am becoming very used to it.

Carry on

How is the average citizen to know that you are a "good guy"? Just like you protect YOURSELF everyday at work, average citizens should protect THEMSELVES by assuming an LEO will violate thier constitutional rights and possibly maim, kill or injure for the sake of "officer safety".

For the average Joe, its better to be SAFE, than sorry, when dealing with LEO's

I can post news articles and old threads from ATS ALL DAY LONG. LEO's can kill whomever they want, most get off Scott free, some get reprimanded and even fewer see jail time. Kids, dogs, elderly, mental disabled, doesn't matter, they have a licensee to kill and the "good" cops, judges and DA's all let it happen.

More than a quarter of civilians shot by HPD in 5 years had no weapon

How many police shootings a year? No one knows

Cop Tries to Shoot Dog, Plugs Kid Instead.

Georgia teen holding Wii remote shot by cops at his front door

Police Shoot At Oriana Ferrell And Van Full Of Her Kids

Dad Calls Cops on Son to Teach Him a Lesson, Cops Shoot Son Dead

'We called for help, and they killed my son,'

Note, NONE of these officers "protecting & serving" have left their positions or the profession out of "guilt" for their crimes/mistakes.

a reply to: boohoo

Again those officers are not me and I too can post positive stories all day.

positiveleo.wordpress.com...

That being said let our conversation come to an end.

I am falling right back into what I said I wouldn't do on ATS.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Thank you sir. That sums it up for low IQ me.

I always forget that as police officers we are less than human.

Silly me.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
I always forget that as police officers we are less than human.

Silly me.

Than go and arrest some known white collar criminals in your community and work with the DA, figuring out how to get it done, within the confines of the law. Second, immediately, stop handing out tickets for a couple of months and instead focus on your conviction rate, trying to actually reduce crime in your community.

We all know, if you did any of the above, you'd be out of work in no time, meaning you DO NOT truly serve the community, you in fact serve corporate and private interests of the wealthy.

As I said "disliked officers", that are truly serving the public get bombarded with "official warnings" and are drummed out administratively. Maybe even the DA's get involved and threaten them with prosecution unless they sign an NDA and resign quietly:

Police chief says he was fired for not writing tickets, Cottrell referred to a January Council meeting during which Councilwoman Linda Kiser said “he didn’t write enough tickets to earn his wages,”

Eaton is appealing the firing, saying he wrote the tickets after the department switched to a merit-based system and he wanted to ensure he would be among the top officers to receive a $6,000 bonus.

a reply to: boohoo

I must be a glutton for punishment...

I have been involved with and helped make several insurance fraud arrests the last couple of years.

If a white collar case comes up I will give it the same attention I give any other case.

I work in the community oriented policing division. I also work as a school resource officer.

I volunteer with a local program that helps children who are behind in reading.

I also volunteer every year for the shop with a cop program which provides gifts for children and families with low income.

flaglerlive.com...

I also volunteer with the special Olympic's torch run.

specialolympicsflorida.org...

I participate in community crime watch meetings and help design security plans for the local schools.

I bust my a** for my community thank you very much.

What do you do to better your community?