"I Don't Make the Laws I Just Enforce Them"

reply to post by MikeNice81

It is called officer discretion.

This is a point that cannot be emphasized enough. Law enforcement officers do not have discretionary power if they witness actual crimes where actual injury is taking place. This discretionary power is only in regards to "victimless crimes".

In regards to your claim that: "...most studies show that less than .02% of encounters with police involve any violence." I would be impressed if you could supply just one study making this claim. I authored a thread a while back addressing the disturbing fact that substantive data on police shootings are a "piecemeal products of spotty collection, and are dependent on the cooperation of local police departments."

Even so, I took that sentence of yours I quoted above and entered it into Googles search engine. The first article to come up was a Wikipedia article on police brutality. Your figure of 0.2% was not cited by any study in this article. What was cited was this www.ojp.usdoj.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink">report:

During 2002 large State and local law enforcement agencies, representing 5% of agencies and 59% of officers, received a total of 26,556 citizen complaints about police use of force.

About a third of all force complaints in 2002 were not sustained (34%). Twenty-five percent were unfounded, 23% resulted in officers being exonerated, and 8% were sustained.

Using sustained force complaints as an indicator of excessive force results in an estimate of about 2,000 incidents of police use of excessive force among large agencies in 2002.

This Bureau of Justice Statistics report claims 8% not 0.2%. Wikipedia also cited this study

In general, police departments and citizen review units will not initiate an investigation into alleged police brutality without a formal complaint. Yet, in all fourteen cities examined by Human Rights Watch, there are serious flaws in the way complaints from the public are initially received or forwarded.

Filing a complaint is unnecessarily difficult and often intimidating, whether the person seeking to complain deals with a precinct sergeant, an internal-affairs investigator or, to a lesser extent, with a civilian review agency. Former Minneapolis Police Chief Tony Bouza has stated, "The police world has a hundred different ways of deflecting complaints."75 Complainants, whether they are victims or witnesses, may not know where to go to file a complaint. They may have difficulty communicating due to language barriers, or they may be met with hostility by officers who do not wish to receive a complaint about a colleague. They may be dissuaded from filing a complaint through threats or other techniques. Officers receiving complaints may ask questions that reveal they do not believe the complainant, or they may ask about the complainant's criminal history or charges that may be pending as a result of the arrest that gave rise to the alleged abuse incident.

There is also this from the www.ojp.usdoj.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Bureau of Justice Statistics:

WASHINGTON, D.C. An estimated 43.8 million people 16 years old or older, or about 21 percent of the population of that age, had contact with the police during 1999, the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The report on police- public contact noted that more than half of these face- to-face interactions were in traffic stops. I

n the bureau's most comprehensive analysis of citizen-police contact, the analysis found that less than 1 percent of these contacts resulted in police force or threat of force. An estimated 20 percent of such incidents involved only the threat to use force. Approximately 422,000 people 16 years old and older were estimated to have had contact with police in which force or the threat of force was used during 1999.

Roughly 52% of all police encounters are traffic stops. Of those traffic stops:

n 0.7 percent of the stops the surveyors were told that force was used, and in 0.5 percent the survey respondents alleged that excessive force was used.

Even these numbers, which only reflect a little more than half of police encounters, doesn't jive with your claim of 0.2%. The fact is that no real effective study has ever been done, and I am reminded of that joke:

78.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Interestingly, I just checked the links I provided to make sure they worked, but the Bureau of Justice Statistic links do not work. Nothing fishy there, right? If you go to the Wikipedia article I linked and check their reference section, those links will take you to them.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
If that women officer is doing her job, what's her problem with someone recording her. She's in a public place and really has no right to jam her hand into the camera of the person shooting the video. Again, why do these officers feel offended by a video camera? If you're legally doing your job what's their concern?

She called more attention to herself if she was worried this video would find a place on YouTube. Now she deserves to get any kind of ridicule being thrown at her.

You make an interesting point. Silent Thunder has authored a thread titled "If You've Done Nothing Wrong You Have Nothing to Worry About which addresses the attitude people take towards other "civilians" who worry abut all the security cameras being implemented. Your suggestion is a sort of reverse angle on that.

reply to post by Bakatono


Sounds to me like you needed a new department. The department I work in is much closer to the second model you mentioned. Then again our department likes to hire older officers that have gotten rid of that need for actions.

I think the beginning of a solution would be for citizens to treat law enforcement the way law enforcement treats citizens. If you see a law enforcement officer that you think is breaking the law, perform a citizen's arrest. If they resist arrest, use police approved tactics to subdue them. When cops begin to wind up hospitalized or dead from resisting arrest, maybe things will change.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


My numbers came from a recent training we went through on deescalation techniques. It could very well be that the trainer was wrong. I do not remember him citing a source.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

My numbers came from a recent training we went through on deescalation techniques. It could very well be that the trainer was wrong. I do not remember him citing a source.

Thank you for the clarification, my friend. As hard as I can be on law enforcement personnel, I have had the profound privilege of making friends with many here on this site, yourself included. I appreciate your contributions in this thread.

I always enjoy contributing to your threads. Even if you are hard on LEOs it is fine. Your position and mine may differ, but I believe you do the research and reach conclusions with a minimum of emotion. Plus, at times I learn a lot from what you post.

Here is something to add to our discussion.

From The Bureau Of Justice Statistics

An estimated 40 million U.S. residents age 16 or older, or about 17% of the population, had a face-to-face contact with a police officer in 2008. This is a continuing decrease in contact between police and the public, down from 19% of residents who had contact with the police in 2005 and 21% who had contact in 2002.

There is actually a downward trend in the percentage of the population that actually has direct contact with police officers. It kind of calls in to question the ATS rhettoric of increasing police intervention in everyone's lives.

Of persons who had contact with the police in 2008, about 9 out of 10 felt the officer or officers behaved properly.

It is hard to believe the big bad bully mythos when 90% of people feel they are treated properly in their encounters with police. The actual survey says that about 1.4% of people had force used (or threatened) against them. That is higher than the number I was given. However, it really doesn't fall in to a number that I would cal epidemic.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

Exactly , the government knows you can make money to survive in the garbage pile of an economy they have left us in , so they want a cut of your money.

I cant believe this , its ridiculous , you need a license to sell lemonade. Do you need a license to give it away ?

I have seen a alot of videos here in the UK of LEO's and community officers who dont even know the law, they were promptly advised that negligence is a punishable crime if you are an officer of the law.

With the new and improved laws making growing your own food illegal, I hope people aren't growing their own lemons to make lemonade. If we can't dance in the Jefferson Memorial, or sell lemonade at the foot of the Jefferson Memorial, then, dare I say it, we should just go on a rampage of civil disobediance by planting apple seeds all over the place. Remember that 19th Century criminal, Johnny Appleseed? Outlaw Johnny, they called him. The posse caught him and hung him, but we remember and sing songs to his memory. Viva Lemonade!

"I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."

Yeah, well when SHTF, no one is going to care he does what he does, they will only care what team you play for. Play for the wrong team and I am guessing that they could care less about his excuses for being a jerk.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by WeRpeons
If that women officer is doing her job, what's her problem with someone recording her. She's in a public place and really has no right to jam her hand into the camera of the person shooting the video. Again, why do these officers feel offended by a video camera? If you're legally doing your job what's their concern?

She called more attention to herself if she was worried this video would find a place on YouTube. Now she deserves to get any kind of ridicule being thrown at her.

You make an interesting point. Silent Thunder has authored a thread titled "If You've Done Nothing Wrong You Have Nothing to Worry About which addresses the attitude people take towards other "civilians" who worry abut all the security cameras being implemented. Your suggestion is a sort of reverse angle on that.

edit on 13-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

This is a great point to bring up because if an officer is doing their job correctly and knows the law , they should have no problems being filmed . Only the ones who dont know the law are afraid of being filmed as it;s evidence of their negligence on their part or evidence of them exerting their given powers over others.

When you film members of the public you can without their express permission , however film a police officer and immediately they ask you to turn it off or face arrest for disobeying an officer !
Which is total rubbish. They have no veto power over us and can order us like we are under their command.

Hence the statement police give " do you understand "

your answer everytime " no I do not stand under your statement" contract contract contract - Sorry I digress

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I always wonder what percentage of the cops in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's wrestled with blasting negroes with fire hoses, sending in dogs after the coloreds, chasing homosexuals out of private bars for being homosexual and so on.

Their oath must be powerful to prevent human decency from surfacing.

I can see the sad cop with tear in eye and baton raised as some lanky mustached man in cut-offs and a half-shirt attempts to block the blows to his head with his arms.

Poor cops. Must be hell to enforce those laws.

lol yeah... powerful oath. More like a fat paycheck, with all the warm protection of the service and the legal system. Best job ever, for psychopaths and sadists.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Poor cops. Must be hell to enforce those laws.

We need to stop dignifying most of what contemporary police enforce, by calling it law.

We have a scenario now where a group of corrupt, rich, geriatric white fascists are able to come together and arbitrarily issue decrees. Said decrees are backed up by the ability of the police to engage in violence against anyone who refuses to adhere to them, but that is literally the only basis of their authority.

98% of what is on the books in any Western country, is not a law in either of the following two senses of that term.

a] It is not reflective of, or in any way designed to uphold or preserve natural or universal processes. In most cases, in fact, it is specifically designed to do the exact opposite.

b] Contrary to what the psychopathic fascists who primarily inhabit contemporary Western governments claim, it is not conducive to the genuine protection or preservation of life, or the prevention of any truly worthwhile form of material loss.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Majority rules is what we call Democracy. However, a Democracy is like 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. We should be a Republic, in that a Republic would protect the sheep from the wolves!

f*c*ing robots... no sense of spirit or soul, no kind in their hearts for fellow man and woman. Law enforcers are an absolute disgrace to this race, putting money and an "oath" before their own kind...

BIOLOGICAL ROBOTS.

~ love is an art

All too often this is the lame excuse LEO's give for breaking the law. "I'm just doing my job."

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

S & F.
This is just a variation of the Nazi defense at Nuremberg, namely "I was just following orders". This is a great deal of this attitude in government today.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While many a thread has all ready been made about the absurd policies of shutting down lemonade stands and even arresting lemonade vendors, I was watching a Youtube video just now where D.C. Capitol police arrested some "lemonade activists" who, as one policewoman put it: "You guys want to be arrested for your cause of lemonade liberation." This is the same brutish loutish police woman who continually shoves her hand into the cameraman's camera with clear intent to harm. At the end of the video there is an interview done with one of these police officers who states "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."

All law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold the law and support and defend the Constitution. For these D.C. Capitol police that Constitution would be the federal Constitution. For local police in any state, the State Constitution would be their Supreme Law of the Land as the federal Constitution is for the D.C. police. Every Constitution makes clear that individuals have rights that are not to be infringed, and in no way is there ever any express "get off the hook" Clause that clarifies that these rights may trampled upon if Congress or state legislatures "make a law" allowing the brutish loutish behavior seen in that video.

All too often this is the lame excuse LEO's give for breaking the law. "I'm just doing my job." However, no law enforcement officer ever has any obligation, nor any duty to act unlawfully. They do have a duty to protect the rights of individuals and do have the lawful authority to refuse to acquiesce to unlawful legislation, but do they? Will they? What is to be done?

AGREED!!!

If there is one fundamental human trait which has gotten us into trouble more than any other it is our willingness to blindly follow orders instead of think for ourselves.

This is true for both "hard" and "soft" orders...as well as whether or not those instructions come from a government, military, political party, corporation, labor union, media pundit, special interest group, divine being, or a religious institution.

Q: What did every single one of those Nazi's who stood trial for war crimes say?
A: "I was just following orders".

...that should tell us something.

The police are basically just Mooks at this point. Imperial Stormtroopers, fairly literally.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
While many a thread has all ready been made about the absurd policies of shutting down lemonade stands and even arresting lemonade vendors, I was watching a Youtube video just now where D.C. Capitol police arrested some "lemonade activists" who, as one policewoman put it: "You guys want to be arrested for your cause of lemonade liberation." This is the same brutish loutish police woman who continually shoves her hand into the cameraman's camera with clear intent to harm. At the end of the video there is an interview done with one of these police officers who states "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them."

All law enforcement officers take an oath of office to uphold the law and support and defend the Constitution. For these D.C. Capitol police that Constitution would be the federal Constitution. For local police in any state, the State Constitution would be their Supreme Law of the Land as the federal Constitution is for the D.C. police. Every Constitution makes clear that individuals have rights that are not to be infringed, and in no way is there ever any express "get off the hook" Clause that clarifies that these rights may trampled upon if Congress or state legislatures "make a law" allowing the brutish loutish behavior seen in that video.

All too often this is the lame excuse LEO's give for breaking the law. "I'm just doing my job." However, no law enforcement officer ever has any obligation, nor any duty to act unlawfully. They do have a duty to protect the rights of individuals and do have the lawful authority to refuse to acquiesce to unlawful legislation, but do they? Will they? What is to be done?

In answer to the "what is to be done?" part of the question...I'm afraid we may only have one answer remaining. That is..."To simply be as uncooperative, annoying, problematic, embarrassing, and persistent as we possibly can be".

Think about...you can't resort to violence. Not only is it morally wrong in the first place, but history shows that it's a technique doomed to fail. You hear a lot of talk about a "revolution 2.0", but in reality any sort of armed revolt would be just the excuse needed to literally get the tanks rolling down the streets and a national curfew.

Are we going to vote the problem away? Get real...the elections are rigged and irrespective of the campaign promises made Senator so-and-so will go ahead and whore himself out to whichever lobbyist approximately 4.2 seconds after being sworn in. There is a reason why there is only one "Ron Paul" in Congress. It's because the mathematical probability of finding an individual of character enough not to kowtow to their party and bribery is approaching nil.

Are we going to "boycott" something? Not likely... in theory if every person in the country refused to pay taxes until the corrupt and authoritarian elements of our government and economy are brought to justice...the country turns around tomorrow based upon the idea that they just don't have room to lock up 300 million Americans. In practice, the first person to try to promote a national refusal to pay income or property taxes will be labeled an "economic terrorist", and tossed into a dark hole right next to Bradley Manning...never to see the light of day again.

Write your Congressman? That's more delusional than thinking that voting is an effective technique.

Bring the issue that our modern municipal police forces are running perilously close to being the very "standing armies" that is expressly forbidden in the Constitution and push for all law enforcement to be done only at the county level whereby the people can elect their own Sheriff? Good luck...let me know how that works out.

As much as I hate to admit it....I think the Occupy Protestors have the right idea. They aren't protesting "for" or "against" a single cause or piece of legislation...because no single piece of legislation can possibly de-screw the country by itself. There are no official "leaders" or "spokespeople" because modern US History tells us that those individuals have an unusual penchant for attracting snipers and bullets under highly unusual circumstances. No "leaders" = no "targets" or people to discredit in the media.

So what's left?

I guess the only thing to do is go stand around in the middle of the road with a bunch of other people and make sure everybody's commute gets real fu%$ed up along with trying to develop a taste for pepper spray.

If enough 84 year old Dorli Rainey's get pepper sprayed sooner or later the government will simply be too embarrassed to continue. If they weren't embarrassed...they wouldn't spend so much time, energy, and money, on the "spin" in the media.

It's the only thing we have going for us.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


This excuse didn't work for the 19th century Nazis, why should it work for the 20th century Nazis?