Im a Police officer, what do you think of that?

well sure. solution could a regular psych eval. pass or take a hike! i will never accept that humans have to react like animals no matter what the situation. a standard of professionalism is not that much to ask from our police forces. perhaps an overhaul of hiring practices......better pay, college degrees, blah. like the ombudsmen stuff, civilian oversight is the key (i think)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ofcourse Anarchy doesnt work , but why couldnt it be that it is necesarry for the establashment of a new just governmental system ? I think the difference lies in intepreting society's problems as details or fundamental errors .

Are you serious here ?

But within the boundries of the law , and most of all of justice and equality . And thats the problem right there , dont push the point to : "they need to be like that" . There's a difference between being alert compared to walking around problemless , than shooting at everybody that looks suspiscious .

And we all know what happened to that piece of shit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some interesting and worthwhile post here;

On Psychological Evaluations; this was recommended years ago as the result of a study done in the 70's that showed a very large - would you believe majority?!? - of Urban police were psychologically unfit for their duties. It would be interesting to discuss here why this was NOT widely implemented. For starters; politicization of police hiring, entrenched `professionals' now chiefs and commissioners, who are among the very ones unfit, etc.,etc.,etc.

On anarchy, some good points here, one, in particular caught my eye, something to the affect, it IS a starting point. Reminds me of my thinking we too often overlook the United States Declaration of Independence when analyzing the Constitution and Bill of Rights for meaning. The three DO go together, and referencing either one without the
Declaration of Independence, particularly "We Hold These Truths to be Self Evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS",,,,, knowing this puts much of what follows in the Bill of Rights in better context and lessens the confusions generated by elusive language and prevents those perversions that have become all too common. I don't understand why we don't have every elected official AND every law enforcement officer recite the first ten articles on at least a weekly basis, to remind them of their limitations and responsibilities. Wouldn't trying to make this pledge happen in every city and village, every State office, every meeting of legislature, everywhere those to whom we give power convene, wouldn't THAT be a move toward what is being sought here.

I've often wondered why we are so adamant about anarchy being evil. Evidence to the contrary, albeit on a small scale, some small towns in New England rebelling against excessive and confiscatory local taxes laid off their ENTIRE police departments. Some verry interesting things happened. for a while, nothing, life went along quite well thank you, crime even diminished, then an outbreak! A rash of break-ins and robberies. When the `perp's' were caught, they turned out to be some of the fired policemen trying to justify the need for police. A similar incident occurred in New York State when some laid off firemen were caught setting fires.
And, on vigilantes, are you sure they will do worse than our current perverted legal system?
I'm for a little anarchy, that would be a fresh start, Allah be praised

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

We should never forget Law is a contrivance of man, and as such flawed. To accept it blindly and listen to our wannabe tyrants recite "we are a nation of laws" and take it as gospel is dangerous over simplification.
Most of what we are forced to deal with are very likely NOT laws, for inherent in our Constitutional law is the condition that any law found wanting on constitutional grounds NEVER WAS LAW. there are an awful lot of those around, and it's the poor cop who has to enforce them. which gets us right back on subject

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think its super how allah makes me think outside the box, question the original premise....blah!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and there you have it. a model!

 

i wish every copper was like you. i am touched by your compassion. i would also like you to know that on a personal level, i am nice to cops, i am concerned for their safety. a cop is like us, someones husband, brother, son...
on a intellectual level however, i move beyond the individual and focus on larger issues. i hope this distinction is valid and you can understand why i would rag on cops.

anyway keep up the good work. we need you

 

I was raised to see cops as those that were too lazy to work and too scared to steal...... ....It's a joke,as is most everything on this crap planet!!!!...

 

Squash ... have you ...?

How many suspects have you killed who turned out to be unarmed?

How many people have you arrested for smoking weed?

How many times have you used ethnicity as your sole grounds for search and seizure?

I ask because it's a tough thing. We hear all sorts of nasty rhetoric about the police in this country whenever they screw up. But American cops privately confess to all manner of violations. Planting evidence, civil rights violations ... two quotes from a former sheriff's deputy of my acquaintance:

- "Sometimes you have the guy and you know he's guilty and you're not just going to let him go, so you invent a reason to arrest him."
- "After all the frustration you go through on the job, it's natural to occasionally take it out on a suspect. A good punch, a good kick. Just be careful not to leave any marks."

This deputy also speaks of falsifying testimony, of hiding violations by fellow officers ....

And yet, when a scandal arises and the police commit yet another violation, we should not, by conventional sympathies, discuss the ongoing problem with law enforcement and its boundaries. We should not, by conventional sympathies, condemn police officers since we're not them. We should not, by conventional sympathies, hold the police accountable for their crimes.

And, in the end, the police have "extra rights". (This, actually, is disturbing, given some of the educational qualifications.)

Extra rights? In court, a police officer has the presumption of honesty that a defendant does not have. If it comes down to the cop's word versus the suspect's, the cop wins. The travesty in Tulia, Texas, shows what's wrong with that.

If a police officer kills somebody, and only the police say the dead man had a gun, judicial reviews generally accept that the dead man posed some sort of threat that warranted killing.

We had a case in Seattle not long ago where a white officer took some flak for shooting a black motorist after the motorist had fled a routine stop. The argument was compelling: "He was dragging my partner along with the car."

Nobody ever answered the question of why the partner didn't just let go of the car. So he shot past his partner and struck the driver in the head.

And you know, if you kill a cop, even an off-duty one, it's over. Whether the cop assaulted you or not is immaterial. It was a cop. Whether you knew the man assaulting you was a cop is immaterial. It was a cop. And when you're convicted, as you most definitely will be, you'll be sentenced to death because it was a cop.

You know ... cops choose to wear the badge and carry the gun. I would hope authority and legal force are not the only reasons they do so.

Every cop who shoots the wrong person ought to be held accountable. Every cop who violates his or her duty ought to be held accountable tenfold the common citizen. After all, the cop is more valuable than the next person, why should the cop not bear the responsibilities of that value?

Police are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.

I like cops who can do their jobs. But I so rarely meet any who can.

I think back to the Oregon officer who stopped me on Highway 22 heading into West Salem a few years ago for possible DUI. He didn't like the way I violated the line. We had a conversation about the legality of the stop in terms of recent court decisions, whereupon he said, "That's fine. We can take you downtown and wait for the lawyer and then seize a blood sample."

I responded to him that I was perfectly willing to do that because even if I had bothered to go drinking that night, all would be square by the time the attorney arrived. Furthermore, I pointed out to him, that the other alternative was to simply run into the van stalled on the highway at about sixty miles per hour. "Let's go downtown and talk about that, why don't we?" I asked. "And you can explain to me why you're hauling me in for not getting myself killed while a dangerous vehicle sits on the highway painted black, with broken taillights (I saw a glint of chrome on the bumper in my headlights and swerved around it) and no visible plates (which would have reflected my headlights)." The cop decided to let it go. But I essentially had to threaten his livelihood. Most people don't know you can get away with that when the cops are utterly without grounds.

(There was a conclusion that went here, but it's been erased by a literal wave of shite. I mean, like, elbow deep. After the mess was cleaned away, I was well-encouraged to find that my daughter's ass had not exploded, though the disaster has claimed casualties. One minor example of which is that I have no idea how I was going to wrap this up.)

:m:,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

fuck juries! citizens arm yourselves

On July 26, 2002, a passerby videotaped then-Inglewood police officer Jeremy Morse picking a handcuffed 16-year-old Donovan Jackson off the pavement and slamming him against the trunk of a patrol car. Morse punched Jackson in the head before another officer restrained him.

After the tape became public, the Los Angeles County district attorney charged Morse with assault, and his former partner, Officer Bijan Darvish, with filing a false police report for not mentioning the use of force.

The jury deadlocked 7-5 in favor of convicting Morse, 25, and acquitted Darvish, 26. A man in the courtroom shouted, ''There's no justice here for our people. There's no justice here!'' Outside the courthouse, another man held a sign reading, '' Jury cop lovers - wrongful decision.''

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/211/nation/LA_officer_s_beating_trial_ends_in_hung_jury .shtml

 

if you're a canadian cop that's something entirely different. there's just something about canada that makes it better than pretty much anywhere else in the world (besides scandinavia of course).

a couple of female cops i know inspired me to want to become a cop but then i realized i'd by a nyc cop and that topic has been covered here.

 

...Damn the police.

They have nothing better to do than harass me because of stereotype.

 

what's funny about cops in canada is that when they sound like assholes, you can hear it's fake. they're just nice ppl trying [unsuccessfully] to project the tough-guy act.

in my 6.5 years in canada i've only met 1 asshole cop. but he was fat and bold and probably impotent

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!