The Role of the Police

Yep, hindsight is a wonderful thing, ain't it. Just like the football discussions on Monday ...everyone knows what the team should have done to win the game, don't they? ....LOL!

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A rock and a hard place

If that conundrum proves too much, what next? Consider, for a moment, the story about the autistic teen. According to the AP article, "... a deputy fired the Taser after a second car had to swerve."

Questions spring to mind: where was the deputy in relation to the teen? How far out in the road was the kid? Do autistics commonly display superhuman strength? Could the deputy have positioned his car to prevent oncoming traffic from reaching the teen? Or was it the convenient way to bring the kid under control without mussing his hair or exposing himself to risk?

Thus: When one applies to be a police officer, do they expect that they will never face possible injury? Should such a candidate even bother applying?

Is part of the job of a police officer to take one for the team if the circumstance demands it? It would seem so, except that in recent years many law-and-order folks have used some fairly squeamish excuses to justify police violence. To revisit a couple of my topic post points:

(2) Seattle, Washington: Police surround a mentally-retarded man suspected of robbing a convenience store with a kitchen knife. The man walks slowly, nonchalantly down the sidewalk with a half-circle of police officers at least twenty-five feet away. The man stops and turns around. An officer fears for his life and shoots the suspect, killing him.​

With a minimum of twenty-five feet between officers and suspect, I would think that stopping one's progress and turning to face in another direction isn't exactly an imminent threat to life and limb. I actually went out in the street one night with a friend, paced off twenty-five feet, and, with him imitating a shooter's stance, attempted to turn around and cover the twenty-five feet as fast as I could. I got two steps, maybe ten feet, before he yelled, "Bang!"

(3) Seattle, Washington: A suspect attempts to flee a traffic stop. The nearest officer grabs onto the car as it pulls away. Fearing for his partner's life, a second officer fires past the other, killing the driver.​

Okay, draw a line straight backwards off the driver's side of a car. Imagine someone hanging onto the car as it moves accelerates away from you. Now imagine a second line from the driver to you: at what angle would you feel confident shooting past the person hanging onto the side of the car to hit the driver in the head? The underlying issue is that the shooter felt his partner was in imminent danger. I would propose two considerations. First, that it's not such a bad idea for the partner to let go of the freakin' car. Secondly, if you're afraid for a person's safety, isn't shooting past them at a moving target just a little bit risky vis a vis that person's safety? Consider the assertion: I was afraid for his safety, so I elevated that risk to his safety.

And to revisit a tale I've told before:

Police in Seattle, pursuing what they believe to be a stolen police cruiser, lose sight of the target vehicle. Topping the hill, they reacquire their target and ram the car. Unfortunately, not having confirmed their target, they have rammed a fellow cruiser searching for the imposter car. That officer, believing himself under attack by the imposter, opens fire at the car that struck him. The officers in the first car return fire. Nobody was hurt. (see SeattleTimes.com for detail)​

People might cite adrenaline, or fear, or any number of factors, but is it really too much to ask that the police know who they're engaging?

In general, the rush to exonerate the police on principle often overlooks the idea that among the obligations of being a police officer is that one must endure extraordinary danger in the line of duty.

If someone turning around and looking at you is cause for deadly violence, or if the possibility that someone might possibly have a gun and might possibly be reaching for it (I carry my wallet in my jacket, and must reach inside to retrieve it) means a cop should shoot, we've reached a bad point. If the cops expect to do dangerous work without ever having to face danger, they ought not be cops.

Don't get me wrong, here. I see the conundrum. But if policy or sentiment elevates the protectors of society to such a point that they should cause danger to society or its members in order to protect themselves first and foremost, are they really protecting anything but themselves? Are they really, at that point, performing the service they've asked to be entrusted with?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa, you keep citing isolated examples as if it really means anything other than isolated examples.

I'll ask again .....How many cops are there in the USA? And how many do you think are bad cops?

That's the heart of your tirades against the cops ...NOT isolated examples. I could give you numerous isolated examples of blacks being criminals, and thus make the conclusion that all blacks are bad. But if I did, you'd make a stink, if not give me an infraction or ban me for it. You're using the same tactics with the cops in your tirades ...using single, isolated incidents to show/proof that cops are all bad.

Again .....How many cops are there in the USA? And how many do you think are bad cops?

Baron Max

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Social contract?

Ask all you want. It doesn't matter. Hell, one friend of mine, whose mother, father, and stepfather have all been cops, was told by his stepfather that if you're on the job long enough, you'll eventually plant evidence, write a bogus incident report, or lie under oath. I find it an interesting suggestion, but I'm not going to apply it, because that means every cop is a bad cop.

Max, such bratty sulking will get you nowhere. The police are part of the government's party to the social contract. Black people aren't. Are you capable of understanding that? Black people are part of the people's party to the social contract.

The purpose of this topic is to explore what the role of the police is. Your insistent comparison of police to black people doesn't work unless we presume that police and black people have equivalent roles in the social contract. In the larger sense, your comparison of black people and police doesn't work unless we presume that government and people have equivalent roles in the social contract. And no, they don't. Do you assert otherwise?

Maybe you should try reading the posts you're criticizing. Of course, I understand that it's easier for you to simply pretend your righteous fantasies have something to do with reality, but they don't.

Or are you just afraid of admitting that the police might not be living up to their obligations?

Consider a quote: "Those who are sworn to uphold the law should not break the law."

Is this an unreasonable statement? If so, why would a calculating, corrupt police chief use it in an effort to maintain a veneer of respectability? (See Robinson, "Inside David Brame's police department")

Consider the words of another disgraced police officer:

Why would cops feel self-conscious about getting shitfaced on a Sunday morning? Why make efforts to conceal such behavior?

For the everyday citizen, getting plowed with a bunch of friends is usually called a party. Why hide at 5:30 in the morning?

It's because even cops recognize that their role in society--a role they requested--demands certain conduct and appearances above and beyond the obligations of everyday citizens.

And this idea is at the heart of the question: Are you willing to say openly that it is unfair to expect better conduct of police officers than everyday citizens? Are you willing to say openly that if one asks for the privilege of carrying lethal force, enforcing the law, and bearing such influence over other people's lives that they have no obligations to do so honestly, diligently, and responsibly?

You're willing to imply it: that's the problem I have with your "Police = Black people" comparison. Like I asked before, do black people choose to be black? How do I apply to be a black person? Where is the state-run facility that teaches me how to be a black person? Do I get to arrest people because I'm a black person?

Look: anyone who leaves their gun in their mistress' car for the kids to find is a moron. When it's a cop, though? Yes, that's an even greater offense.

Analogously, was it fair for the fact of Catholic priests doing the child molesting, and the church essentially facilitating the abuse, to augment people's outrage over the situation? After all, the church claims a specific role, and those who wish to be priests ask for certain responsibilities and pledge themselves to certain obligations.

Why should anyone be upset about political corruption? Is it unfair to expect that elected politicians conduct themselves honestly, diligently, and responsibly?

Do you understand the idea of the social contract? Do you accept the idea of the social contract? What, in your understanding, are the terms of the social contract?

 

Police... what can i say?
They work for justice, yet their successors are probably the most unjustified powers that be. The police wear the badge in honor of what they believe in, yet they flout their power with the highest impunity.
They are essentially power-drunk, and invariantly know no real justice, and that their work, whether it be legal or not, is never respected as much as they respect their weekly paycheck. The payers money of course.

Reiku

 

No, the chances were high the perpetrators didn't have guns. This was not happening in the USA. The claim was that more and more criminals have guns nowadays in Europe, especially the ones that torture, but actually, this is a false statement on several levels.

The gun penetrance along criminals is still not very high in Europe. The chances are higher that perpetrators do not have guns then that they do. Shootouts with criminals are extremely rare.

There are no stats on gun possession among people that torture because it is very much an incident.

Therefore, the two police officers were basically obliged to take action. That is why they carry guns and guns are not sold at a whim in Dutch society. To keep the penetrance low.

With your statement, Baron Max, you suggest that a police officer should always play it safe. They should wait till the crime is done and then come to see what happened.

If that were the case then they could also cancel the 112 emergency number (probably 911 in your area), and dismantle the entire police force. Well, we could keep them to write speeding tickets, but that means we can just as well take away their guns and not train them for these incidents.

 

But I might muss my hair

I believe, good Monkey, you have struck after the heart of the issue.

Retail managers are taught to play along if they're ever robbed: it's not worth getting yourself killed over the till. Is it the "Let's get a taco" scene in Reservoir Dogs that so aptly explains that situation?

But the police ... isn't that the point of giving them guns and allowing them to handcuff and abduct people in the name of the law? Isn't that why we don't call it abduction? Because they're enforcing the law when they arrest someone?

I think society, or, at least, American society, is becoming squeamish on certain issues. Nobody likes to admit, for instance, that yes, it is a soldier's job to kill and die. Throughout the ages, leaders have sent men out to fight knowing that some, many, or most of them would not come back regardless of the outcome. (Name the Metallica song ... anyone? Anyone?)

To what degree is this true of police? Jeez, even as a kid I knew that scene in Die Hard was bullshit. I mean, yes, sometimes you do have to plan for how many hostages are going to die. But given that we can't just let the criminals run loose, and if police should just play it safe, how long before a bank robbery and hostage call will be resolved by airstrikes?

Spokesman: Shortly after noon, today, local police received a call alleging a bank robbery. Officers responded to the scene, trapping the robbers inside. The officer in charge attempted to negotiate, but the robbers refused to just be nice and come out with their hands up. A tactical assessment suggested that the best way to preserve life was to call in an airstrike. At twelve thirty-four, Air Force personnel working jointly with local police dropped a fifteen hundred pound, laser-guided bomb on the bank, killing all the robbers inside.

Reporter: What about the civilians?

Spokesman: The collateral damage is regrettable, but we must take every precaution to protect our personnel.

Reporter: So ... you killed the civilians?

Spokesman: These officers are out risking their lives for the people every day. It's not an easy job to call in airstrikes, and not something just anyone is qualified to do. We owe these brave men and women our gratitude and admiration. We cannot let the criminal element win. God bless America.​

 

Wow. And this proves? That in one instance police following procedure did not protect someone. Something that happens in the US also. And in instances where guns are not the issue.

 

It proves that expecting a gun was not warranted. As the stats show.

As for procedure, the police officers in question were fully in their right to enter the building and take action.

They were also in their right to wait for backup.

And that leaves us the point that Tiassa brought up in his last post. What is the responsibility of the police? The individual police officer?. Is the life of a police officer so precious that inaction is preferable? Or the other side of the coin: is the life of a police officer so precious that use of excessive violence is warranted?

As Tiassa rightfully pointed out; we are probably discussing exactly the same problem but with two different outcomes; inaction and application of excessive violence. And this analysis has led to the postulation that the risk evaluation and acceptance for the individual has changed, ironically increasing the acceptance for the police to do either nothing or use excessive violence at the personal cost of the citizen.

Which was more interesting than your knee-jerk

 

The actions or inactions of a few should not be construed as evidence of wrong-doing by all others. To do so is nothing short of extreme prejudice based on very little evidence, and is usually considered dangerous, or sheer ignorance at the very least.

The police, like everyone else are humans ....humans are not perfect and never will be. Humans make mistakes. And yet here, you expect perfection of them ...why?

But see, Tiassa, you're doing something even worse in your tirades ....you're applying the actions of only a few in order to condemn an entire profession. Would you do that with any other profession?

Like doctors/surgeons? I know of many errors by doctors/surgeons ....so do you condemn the entire medical profession because of the errors of only a few doctors/surgeons? If not, then why are you condemning all cops?

Like scientists? I know of many errors by scientists ...so do you condemn the entire scientific profession because of the errors of only a few scientists? If not, then why are you condemning all cops?

Tiassa, no matter how I read your posts, with all of the isolated examples, I can see nothing but extreme prejudice in your tirades, or worse, extreme hatred. And if that's true, since I know a few blacks who hate cops, then I conclude that you're not only extremely prejudiced, but you're black as well.

Baron Max

 

We have civil rights laws in the USA which prevent the police from entering a home without a warrant, or without solid evidence of a crime being committed.

Screams may or may not be evidence of a crime in progress, but you seem perfectly willing to allow the police to make that judgement ...to violate the civil rights of that homeowner?

Screams? Little kids playing in the park scream like little banshees! Are they in dire trouble?

Spurious, I think you're putting a terrible burden on the police in that situation and, worse, you're calling for them to violate the civil rights of the homeowner/renter based on some very tenuous evidence.

And yet, you'd be the first to condemn the police for breaking into a home based on the screams of a woman having a great sexual orgasm with her husband.

But by the same token, in the same situation, if the police did not act, and it was later learned that she'd been raped, you'd condemn the cops for not breaking down the door and saving the poor woman, right?

What y'all seem to want is ..perfection. Not from yourselves, but from others around you. Ain't that a little unfair?

Baron Max

 

I wouldn't be surprised if this is what American society will develop into. And of course, all the people who defend tasering today, will defend collateral damage tomorrow. We already see this lack of concern for human life rampant in their society (anyone knows how many people dying in the wars, on both sides, anyone?)

Besides, its baa'd to question authority

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GclCE0cLA-o

 

Cries for help are admissible as "solid evidence" even in the USA. Or are you suggesting something retarded that the police cannot enter a building when someone cries for help? because in that case criminals are going to have a blast. They just have to wait at the 'crime' scene till the police goes away (to get a donut, take a pee, go to sleep). Because the police cannot wait forever for a criminal to leave the scene and enter the public domain, because the next crime is around the corner.

I'm sure even you can distinguish between the cries of sexual orgasm and those of torture.


Please refrain from posting this kind of nonsense for the sake of 'argument'.




In fact in the USA the police can actually enter someone's home without even identifying themselves as police. In fact in the US you can be send to prison without a trial. So don't bitch about civil rights in the USA because you don't have any anymore.

 

Perhaps legally they can, but it would be stupid to burst in through a door without knowing what was waiting on the other side ....without heavy backup in case the house contained many armed, desperate men. Instead of solving any problems, it might just get more people killed or wounded.

Okay, it might have been a bunch of college kids trying to play a prank on the neighbors and the cops. The point is, no one knew what was going on inside the house. And your foolish idea of using probability that there were no guns is somewhat like Russian roulette.

Baron Max

 

Max, we're familiar with the fact that the only ways you try to read my posts are intended to invent some useless, exaggerated opposition.

Given that you can only attack, attack, attack, and never show any decent and honest consideration of the points put before you, the only hatred you should be worrying about is your own.

 

My opinion is that about 3 percent are "bad" cops. Does that help you? In society there's about a 5 to 8 percent of all people who are "bad" overall so I'd say that the percentage is lower because of screening that takes place in the police academies before people are allowed to enter into the force. Now being bad doesn't mean that they are going to kill people only that they will go against the laws that are enacted in some or many ways.

Mod Note: The quoted text has been altered to remove moderated content.

 

Mod Hat - Temporary closure (updated)

Mod Hat - Temporary closure (updated)

Update: The topic is reopened. I have moved nineteen posts to a separate topic (click here) as being digressive. Members wishing to participate in that discussion are welcome to do so. Further digression will meet moderator action including, but not limited to, the editing or migration of posts, infraction warning (yellow), or infraction points (red). General questions, comments, or objections regarding this cleanup should not be posted in the present topic, but should be addressed through appropriate channels (e.g. SFOG). Affected posters may certainly contact me via private message.

Thank you.

• • •​

This topic is temporarily closed for general cleanup. It will be reopened shortly. Apologies, of course, for any inconvenience.

 

Oaths of Office (selected)

The Oath of the Illinois State Police, undertaken by cadets at the ISP Academy:

"I solemnly vow upon my honor as a cadet and citizen, to adhere to the rules and regulations of the Illinois State Police and to adopt the agency's mission and goals into my every day life. I pledge to be honest in thought, word, and deed; to strive toward my highest learning effort and avail myself of every opportunity to learn to my highest capacity. I will do this by maintaining unimpeachable integrity of behavior to bring honor upon the Illinois State Police. I shall endeavor to give thoughtful, intelligent obedience to the commands of my superiors, to obey the Constitution and laws of my country and the State of Illinois in a way that will set my behavior for the remainder of my career with the Illinois State Police."​

From the Colorado State Patrol, the Oath of Office recited at Academy graduation:

I _______________, do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Colorado and faithfully perform the duties of the office of Patrol Trooper upon which I am about to enter.​

From the Florida Highway Patrol:

"I do solemnly swear: I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States and of the State of Florida; I will render strict obedience to my superiors in the Florida Highway Patrol, and observe and abide by all orders and regulations prescribed by them for the government and administration of said Patrol; I will always conduct myself soberly, honorably and honestly; I will maintain strict, punctual and constant attention to my duties; I will abstain from all offensive personality or conduct unbecoming a police officer; I will perform my duties fearlessly, impartially and with all due courtesy, and I will well and faithfully perform the duties of a Florida Highway Patrol Officer on which I am now about to enter. So help me God."​

FHP troopers also recite a Code of Ethics (see FHP link above):

"As a member of the Florida Highway Patrol, my fundamental duty is to serve humankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional Rights of all people to liberty, equality and justice.

"I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or what is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

"I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities, or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence, and never accepting gratuities.

"I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objections and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession . . . law enforcement."​

 

So what's this bullshit, Tiassa? A bunch of high-sounding, idealistic words? And you posted those words because.....?

By far, the greater percentage of cops are nice guys, working hard in an attempt to keep the hordes of humans in a somewhat orderly interaction.

That a few cops aren't up to the challenge, or simply can't handle the constant interaction with human scumbags, is no reason to hate all cops. To do so is nothing but prejudice and misguided hatred. Which is, it seems, how you feel about cops.

Get help, Tiassa.

Baron Max

 

No, they are not Police. They are civilians in the employ of the local Police force, who have been granted up to 20 (depending on the circumstances) powers more than regular citizens. Largely these are public order related, and they do not have any greater power of arrest over a regular citizen.

PCSOs are a waste of money, and an embarrassment.