Do you support our current president? by canttakesky

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

You mean kinda like this?

Biped.

Succinct Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:12 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Biped.

Breeder.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:20 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Law Enforcement is not perfect, as it consists of human beings who are not perfect. That said, Law Enforcement is the ONLY thing protecting you and your loved ones from the robbers, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists out there. Some people wanna go all paranoid and point to aberrations as reasons for not trusting or even hating authority?...that's fine with me. I thank God every day that there are dedicated men and women willing to do this type of work that protects everything & everybody I care about.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
How can your dream of a purely Marxist society ever come to pass, if the state continues to police the public?

Marxist? Shirley, you jest!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Law Enforcement is not perfect, as it consists of human beings who are not perfect. That said, Law Enforcement is the ONLY thing protecting you and your loved ones from the robbers, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists out there.

No, I protect me from much of that...that being said, are you, Jong, feeling surrounded by such mobs of evil-doers? I guess I'm glad that I don't live where YOU do, heh heh

Quote:
I thank God every day that there are dedicated men and women willing to do this type of work that protects everything & everybody I care about.

I thank Buddha myself for the good peeps on the job, doesn't mean I don't loathe the creeps that slide by on the shadowy side of things.

Iron-fisted Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Breeder.

Homosapien.

Evolved Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:20 AM

JONGSSTRAW

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Law Enforcement is not perfect, as it consists of human beings who are not perfect. That said, Law Enforcement is the ONLY thing protecting you and your loved ones from the robbers, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists out there.
No, I protect me from much of that...that being said, are you, Jong, feeling surrounded by such mobs of evil-doers? I guess I'm glad that I don't live where YOU do, heh heh
Quote:
I thank God every day that there are dedicated men and women willing to do this type of work that protects everything & everybody I care about.
I thank Buddha myself for the good peeps on the job, doesn't mean I don't loathe the creeps that slide by on the shadowy side of things.

Iron-fisted Chrisisall

Mock all you want little man. I am steadfast in my beliefs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Mock all you want little man. I am steadfast in my beliefs.

Not mockin', Jong, just funnin'- there's a difference.

No monkey-pants Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:32 AM

ALWAYS so much hate in these kinds of threads... and I'm sorry, but I've always had an issue with the WAY you present yourself in these kinds of arguments, Frem, which make me want to side with Finn instead of listening to a prefectly valid viewpoint that you may have... I do not disagree with WHAT your saying most times Frem, just the WAY you say it...

The way you state your ideas seems to me to be you forcing your own point of view down peoples throats, and belitteling them and demeaning them until they either agree to your point of view or, as you say "slink off in their own trail of slime"

You, sir, should try slinking away from these boards in your own trail of slime until you can learn to play nice with the rest of the folks on these boreds... both Finn and yourself are rather inflamitory presences into these kinds of debates...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You don’t want the police to regulate themselves - you want the police to be disband in favor of an anarchic society. You don’t care about confidence in the police. Your whole attitude is an attempt to undermine confidence in the police. You don’t want them to do their job - you want them gone - out of the equation completely.
Finn, uh, I think you're doing with Frem what you said I'm doing with you, which is cherry picking & telling HIM HIS position on stuff.

No. I’m not doing that at all. If you don’t believe me go read what Frem has to say on the idea of anarchy. The difference here is that I actually read what Frem says. So I actually know what he thinks the state is so inherently corrupt and oppressive that he believes it should be done away with completely. And this isn’t something Frem mentioned on the side one day - this has been his raison d’etre for a while now - you couldn’t miss it, unless you were trying to.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Can we just agree on the following?
About a third of people in general are clueless or petty, and since cops are people, you should expect about the same percentage out of them.
See, if I was a cop, I'd be as quick to rat out a dickwad in my department as I would be to arrest a perp in the streets- an attitude that could get me killed, do you get that? We NEED police; I would just like to see a higher standard of recruitment & professionalism is all. But then the same goes for all government everywhere, IMO.

So what is your point? Are you trying to convince me that not all police are angels? That there are bad cops out there? Is that what you want me to believe?

**Corrected for geometry, at the request of Signym.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:46 AM

Jesus H. Frem.... YES!!! Yes, there are bad cops out there, also, yes there are good cops out there... to simply refuse to belive there are no bad cops simply because you have not personaly been affected by them, you are INSANE!!!

I think I may just give up on any and all serious, current event posts, the amount of insanity and bias being brought forth, not to mention the amount of hateful attitude comeing off these things is driving me away....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So what is your point? Are you trying to convince me that not all police are angles? That there are bad cops out there? Is that what you want me to believe?

Well, do you believe that all cops are angles? Or have angles? Or do you believe that all cops are angels?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
How can your dream of a purely Marxist society ever come to pass, if the state continues to police the public?
Marxist? Shirley, you jest!

I never jest. I don’t have a sense of humor that I’m aware of. And don’t call me Shirley.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
No. I’m not doing that at all. If you don’t believe me go read what Frem has to say on the idea of anarchy. The difference here is that I actually read what Frem says. So I actually know what he thinks the state is so inherently corrupt and oppressive that he believes it should be done away with completely. And this isn’t something Frem mentioned on the side one day - this has been his raison d’etre for a while now - you couldn’t miss it, unless you were trying to.

Maybe I'm taking his exuberance on the subject with a grain of salt...I din't get that he wants NO government...maybe I should re-read it to check...

Quote:

So what is your point? Are you trying to convince me that not all police are angles? That there are bad cops out there? Is that what you want me to believe?

"Angles"? Not understanding here.
I just want to see if you agree that corruption exists in many departments, and that the fact that you haven't personally been directly adversely affected by it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just curious.

Chrisisall, sad victim of police verbal abuse, theft & threats himself

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
"Angles"? Not understanding here.
I just want to see if you agree that corruption exists in many departments, and that the fact that you haven't personally been directly adversely affected by it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Just curious.

Well, chris, obviously I believe cops are all angles. Some are acute others are obtuse and still others are right. And then there are the spherical angles, which I don‘t even want to get started on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ted Striker: Surely you can't be serious.
Rumack: I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

-----------------

Rumack: You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.
Elaine Dickinson: A hospital? What is it?
Rumack: It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.

------------

Roger Murdock: Flight 2-0-9'er, you are cleared for take-off.
Captain Oveur: Roger!
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: L.A. departure frequency, 123 point 9'er.
Captain Oveur: Roger!
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Victor Basta: Request vector, over.
Captain Oveur: What?
Tower voice: Flight 2-0-9'er cleared for vector 324.
Roger Murdock: We have clearance, Clarence.
Captain Oveur: Roger, Roger. What's our vector, Victor?
Tower voice: Tower's radio clearance, over!
Captain Oveur: That's Clarence Oveur. Over.
Tower voice: Over.
Captain Oveur: Roger.
Roger Murdock: Huh?
Tower voice: Roger, over!
Roger Murdock: What?
Captain Oveur: Huh?
Victor Basta: Who?

www.imdb.com/title/tt0080339/quotes

I never jest. I don’t have a sense of humor that I’m aware of.

(The FBI doesn't have a sense of humor that I'm aware of, ma'am.)
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 2:24 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, I obviously took silly-pills this AM and I derailed a perfectly valid, serious discussion about authority.

Finn, words seem to have been put into your mouth that all cops are good cops. I'm pretty sure that's not what you think. So, what DO you think?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 4:57 PM

JONG

Quote:
That said, Law Enforcement is the ONLY thing protecting you and your loved ones from the robbers, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists out there.

Not quite.

Situational awareness, self-defense, are your first bulwark.

Why do I refer to the police as the Cavalry ?

Cause in a way, that's what they are - look, a minor kitchen greasefire, you might nail that one yourself, especially if like me you have a proper fire extinguisher on hand, fully charged and of the correct type.

But that's the key word, MIGHT, and if it gets out of your control, beyond your personal ability to handle, you call 911 and howl for the cavalry in the form of your local fire department, yes ?

The fire extinguisher is your first line, but nobody is saying just cause someone has one there's no NEED for a fire dept.

This analogy goes for the police as well.

Even in regions that DO respect one's right to self protection, there are situations that require more troops or firepower, at least in potential, than one person can bring to bear - and as well police replaced the old time tradition of the posse, instead of rounding up a posse when the criminal has headed for the hills, you summon the police to serve the same function, which in theory they should be better at since it's a fulltime job to them.

Believe me I understand the idea in concept, but it's execution has become so distorted that we need to put a leash on it, and the sooner the better.

CHRIS

Quote:
Maybe I'm taking his exuberance on the subject with a grain of salt...I din't get that he wants NO government...maybe I should re-read it to check...

Please do, you'll note that I state over and over that socially, mentally, emotionally, we're not ready for that and will not be for a long time.

That is where incremental minimalism comes into play, weaning us off dependance on external authority starting with that which has no use, is counterproductive, or only exists to fill the porkbarrel.

What I am pulling for is returning some level of personal responsibility and autonomy instead of giving more and more of our lives into the care of others till we're practically a nationwide nursing home.

The police need to learn to accept and respect the fact that people are capable of protecting themselves against minor threats, if not so viciously discouraged, and allow them to do so while using their limited resources for issues that do require professional intervention.

And no, it sure doesn't help when the department itself, and those affiliated with it, are involved in some of those very issues - like the drug trade and it's associated criminal activity and violence, which their purpose is to mitigate, not participate.

BROWNCOAT

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I've always had an issue with the WAY you present yourself in these kinds of arguments, Frem, which make me want to side with Finn instead of listening to a prefectly valid viewpoint that you may have... I do not disagree with WHAT your saying most times Frem, just the WAY you say it...

The way you state your ideas seems to me to be you forcing your own point of view down peoples throats, and belitteling them and demeaning them until they either agree to your point of view

I think you mistake me, Browncoat, severely so - yes, I can be harsh, but I will listen to and countenance an argument, especially one where evidence is given and the reason and logic holds, even when I don't agree.

But I refuse to tolerate blatant lies, deliberate distortions, and intentional misrepresentation of my arguments in the fashion it has been done here, and will not only call it out, but hell yes I will bust someones chops for it, cause I get sick of being on the receiving end of it over and over for no better reason than holding a different political concept than most folk do.

You bring me a convincing argument, and some evidence, I can be quite reasonable, but sorry, it's just not in me to tolerate lies, deceptions, misrepresentation of my own viewpoints and plain out and out nastiness from someone with a long history of exactly that, and I will question the credibility of someone with that history when they offer a viewpoint that the evidence is overwhelmingly against, and only their own word as support of that viewpoint.

It might be worth noting that I tend to remain silent on a topic until I have some hard evidence in hand to go with, and if I have naught but opinion to offer, generally state that up front unless it's bloody obvious.

And you might wanna question why my presence is so "inflammatory" as you put it, cause it's not just how I say something, but also that I have a viewpoint and way of looking at the world which is radically different than most folk, and thus tends to grate on the assumptions and rationalizations they use to make this world palatable to them - as theirs surely grate on mine.

But the heat and light of that friction can also bring illumination, cause in spite of me calling Finn out on his behavior and tactics, it might surprise you to find that there are some things I might agree with him on, I don't treat him as a cardboard cutout, but as an individual, even when tearing into him, a respect I am fully aware is not offered in kind, but I give anyway because once you reduce folk to carictures in your mind, you can no longer learn from them because you're not listening to what they have to say.

Also, you might wanna rethink any idea that I would force a belief or opinion on someone when the very concept of that is not only anthema to me, but that being on the recieving end of it at the hands of both the public and their government is indeed the reason WHY I come across so harshly at times.

By no means is anyone obligated to agree with me, but if you wanna argue the point, argue the point - instead of attacking me, my beliefs, or my right to hold them.

If someone did that to you, would you not respond in a less than pleasant fashion perhaps ?

Just some thoughts on that for you, is all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
By no means is anyone obligated to agree with me, but if you wanna argue the point, argue the point - instead of attacking me, my beliefs, or my right to hold them.

If someone did that to you, would you not respond in a less than pleasant fashion perhaps ?

Just some thoughts on that for you, is all.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Hmmm... I'm sorry if my opinion came off as me attacking you, I can be the exact same way, and I tend to look into these threads generally a few days after all of the debate has taken place, so I tend to skim them instead of read them straight through. Most of the comments that I have noticed from you happen to be attacking (at least in part) something in which I believe strongly in (not "todays" debate in particular) it's just that this was kind of the straw that broke the camals back and I may have gotten a bit abrasive and/or defensive...

Again, I appologize if I came off as attacking you, just a general build up of... bad vibes I guess... comeing off today (stupid alarm clock didn't go off, so I got to class late, and it's friggin SNOWING up here again

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 5:07 AM

Nah, you had a legit beef and I felt an explaination was required.

All too often with one of these threads, I wanna debate the topic and somehow wind up fielding crap that doesn't contribute to it instead, and when folks do that for reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, I do tend to bare some fangs over it, and certain folk have done it often enough that I can be pretty unpleasant about it, sure.

Thing is, the hammer of my argument accomplishes little or nothing without the anvil of a well expressed opposing viewpoint, we've come up with some pretty sensible and palatable ideas on other topics that way - but it doesn't work if instead of forging solutions we attack each other with the tools, you see.

Obviously all police cannot be bad, for were that the case, they would be unable whatsoever to perform the function that they do, that ain't ever what I been sayin - just that we need reforms, we need controls on their behavior, and how to do it without impacting their ability to perform the assigned function, cause if you mire it down in regs and red tape, that's every bit as bad as allowing things to run wild.

We also seriously need to take a closer look at their training and it's focus, I believe, and if I get the chance sometime next week, imma do that, got some business down near there to handle and can maybe put some questions to folk, although that place gives me the willies, as it would any Anarchist, meh.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:06 AM

By "business" you mean bombing the police station, dontcha, ya anarchist

(total sarcasm here, stupid text is hard to show that unless you write it out

)

Oh, yes... suprisingly I agree with you on this topic

Although I personally haven't had any bad experiences with cops, I've heard plenty of horror stories and wonder why in the hell they can get away with that...

Although I haven't heard a story quite like the one with the old man and his being disarmed... I'm gunna have to do some of my own digging in regards to that, and if it is true (not saying I don't think it's possible, just saying it sounds highly unlikely to me) then there is something seriously wrong there... if a man can loose a pistol that he kept for his own self defence and had registered to his name... well, that's some hardcore trampling of our constitutional right to bear arms...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, I obviously took silly-pills this AM and I derailed a perfectly valid, serious discussion about authority.

Finn, words seem to have been put into your mouth that all cops are good cops. I'm pretty sure that's not what you think. So, what DO you think?

I think most people oversimplify the situation - they don’t understand it and many don’t want to. It’s easy to despise authority, but reasonable people understand it’s necessity and should try to be fair in their thinking.

The simplification that occurs is the myth of the “asshole cop.” Like any group of people, there will always be “assholes,” but that’s pretty subject and unspecific term. When we examine what “asshole” means I think we discover that the asshole cops aren’t really the problem. One might view an asshole cop as a corrupt cop - someone who uses his position for illicit activity. But cops aren’t stupid, and if a cop is corrupt he’s not going to bring attention to himself. Yes, it’s true he may use inappropriate force, but often he will be operating in the shadows out of view or concern of the public. So corrupt cops pose a unique problem but not typically the one that is responsible for the negative view some in the public hold of police. The second way “asshole” is interpreted is to assume that police are power-hungry, suffering from inferiority complexes - not really corrupt but just bullies - and while it makes sense that police work would disproportionately attract this kind of personality to the career, over say bank tellers or engineers, the assumption that this plays a big role in the appearance of police does not take into account the degree to which police work is heavily documented and regimented with strict rules of conduct and engagement. Quite literally police are not at liberty to employ their own personality - but rather are required to employ very strict rules of engagement - which include an excess of politeness. So I seriously doubt that the bully factor plays as much into this as some think.

This doesn’t mean that either of these situation isn’t important on its own merit and shouldn’t be source of concern and dealt with appropriately - but this is a different topic - this is not typically what creates those YouTube encounters from which some people will inevitably demand that all cops are assholes. Sometimes it is the bully-cop or the corrupt-cop that we see on YouTube, but most of the time, what we are looking at are good cops who are subject like everyone else to human nature.

Unlike bank tellers and engineers, police often routinely deal with people who have both the incentive and the will to do them harm, and while they are trained to deal with these kinds of people, situational awareness will never be 100% and mistakes get made and tress takes its tole. An officer may be having a bad day, and may over react to what would otherwise be a benign situation. We can criticize this behavior and say it shouldn’t happen, but there for the grace of god go us. Often the situation is even more ambiguous, an officer may see something or hear something that tips him off to a more dangerous situation then is present or he may correctly react to a real potential of a dangerous situation, only to have the suspect deny that there was any such danger, or the situation may go completely by the book with no one getting hurt, but a naïve uninformed populous may still find reason to resent the actions of the police. And we, the citizenry share more blame for these kinds of situations then we are generally willing to admit. Many people resent the authority of the police or may resent that authority when it is applied to them. Many people may correctly believe that they are not a threat, and may naively fail to understand why the police might view them as a potential threat. And so we tend to mouth off and become over agitated by authority more then we should - we tend to fail to understand the seriousness of the situation - but any encounter with an officer is serious, even if its just a routine traffic stop. You don’t know him and he doesn’t know you - and neither of you know for sure what‘s going to happen next. Any encounter has the potential to go awry with consequences we may later regret - so it is important that we do not aggravate a situation. This doesn’t make cops bad, it makes them human and it makes us human. An officer may deal with thousands of encounters that go perfectly fine before one misconstrued event or one suspect reacts in such a way that the officer may feel compelled to react himself. There is no way to avoid these kinds of situation - there is no amount of training that will rid us of human nature or make us 100% aware of our situation. So in the Internet age, there will always be YouTube to point out those situations, and unfortunately there will always people who wish to assign these YouTube examples as blanket example of police.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:43 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

just got a short span here... i'm being moved to maximum security in a few... seems that they actually had to parole a couple of serial rapists/murderers to make room for me... ya see i got popped with 2 seeds in the ashtray of my vw.... johnny law in these parts has his priorities don't you know....

seriously shirley, i'm not going to waste everyone's time here with my interpretation of good cop bad cop... but i noticed a new movie out today - Street Kings that evidently paints a pretty grim picture of the LAPD.... a Keanu Reeves vehicle... so take it for what you will..

please continue....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 9:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Quite literally police are not at liberty to employ their own personality - but rather are required to employ very strict rules of engagement - which include an excess of politeness."

I have a cousin who is a version of federal police (don't want to say exactly what kind). Many, many things happen that aren't by the book - all the other cops know, maybe even the next level up has a suspicion (but it's a don't ask, don't tell policy) - but you're making a very unsupported statement here. Without cams and recorders, with only other police and suspects as witnesses - WHO exactly is going to ensure that this code of conduct is followed ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 10:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Quite literally police are not at liberty to employ their own personality - but rather are required to employ very strict rules of engagement - which include an excess of politeness.

Except for the ones that consider themselves the Law, as opposed to being those that serve it.

Quote:
So I seriously doubt that the bully factor plays as much into this as some think.

*muffled sardonic laughter*

Quote:

most of the time, what we are looking at are good cops who are subject like everyone else to human nature.
An officer may be having a bad day, and may over react to what would otherwise be a benign situation.

Difference is when I'm having a bad day I don't TASE anyone or start a process that requires time, lawyers and money.

Quote:
We can criticize this behavior and say it shouldn’t happen, but there for the grace of god go us.

I guess I'm just a superior homosapien then- NOTHING could cause me to physically harm someone who isn't directly trying to harm me or others...I guess I'm just exceptional that way- I should cut some slack for peeps with badges & guns that feel the need to let off some steam occasionally...

Quote:
Many people may correctly believe that they are not a threat, and may naively fail to understand why the police might view them as a potential threat. And so we tend to mouth off and become over agitated by authority more then we should - we tend to fail to understand the seriousness of the situation - but any encounter with an officer is serious, even if its just a routine traffic stop.

Puhleeeeze. I was stopped by a cop in a police car while I was riding my bike at night when I was 25, the officer treated me like s**t for ten minutes before even noticing my hunting knife visibly strapped to my belt, at which point he asked me why I had it. I told him I checked with the local PD and they said it was all legal, and that I carried it due to the presence of wild dog packs that roamed the area I had to bike through at late hours. He asked me what planet I thought he was from and I SO wanted to tell him Uranus, but I didn't. He then took the knife from me, and when I asked him when I might be allowed to get it back, he asked me if I really wanted to spend a night in jail. Then he told me to go home. Next day I drew a picture of him & went to the station in the precinct listed on his car, and was told no such incident had been reported, and when I showed the drawing and explained that I wanted to make no trouble, but that it was a fairly expensive knife, they told me to come back the following day, which I did. They handed me my knife in a bag, and had me sign nothing. When I got home I found it had been sharpened razor-fine. That punk stole a cool, legal knife from what he thought was a scared, dumb kid (I played it well, I guess) just for fun. And that's my nicest bad-cop story.

Quote:
This doesn’t make cops bad, it makes them human and it makes us human.

In MY job, I'm REQUIRED to leave my bad day at home, why can't someone with a firearm be required to do the same?

Good Chrisisall bad Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 10:34 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
This doesn’t make cops bad, it makes them human and it makes us human.
In MY job, I'm REQUIRED to leave my bad day at home, why can't someone with a firearm be required to do the same?

Ah but do you? Really? I know I can't chose my bad days, sometimes things just go down hill and I can't afford to say "you know what, I'm going home now."

We all have bad days the best we can hope for is that we show some grace under pressure.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

We all have bad days the best we can hope for is that we show some grace under pressure.

...and not shoot someone.

Agreeing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 10:49 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

We all have bad days the best we can hope for is that we show some grace under pressure.
...and not shoot someone.

Agreeing Chrisisall

You work for the postal service?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 10:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

We all have bad days the best we can hope for is that we show some grace under pressure.
...and not shoot someone.

Agreeing Chrisisall

You work for the postal service?

No, but I do work with the public, all day

, and I still wouldn't tase most folk.

Non-violent Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:04 AM

You keep bring up tasing, but use of tasers is often a perfect example of a situation in which police react appropriately, only to be condemned for it because people understandably find the screaming and thrashing of tased individuals disagreeable. But what many people don’t understand (and in truth many don’t want to understand) is that tasing is far safer then physical restraint. Most unexplained deaths that occur in custody have been shown to be the result of physical restraint, yet many people would prefer police to use physical restraint simply because it avoids them the discomfort of seeing someone being tased. You want to simplify the issue down to a bunch bullying police, but its not that simple.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:30 AM

Browncoat, I doubt the old geezer had any paperwork on the piece he was waving around that night, I figure they cited him for "brandishing" and took it in hopes of preventing one of the little punks from getting shot, I myself couldn't tell you what level of training the guy had, either, never knew him well enough, so it's not beyond pale he might have capped one of them without intent.

That bein said, when they came back that night, I doubt they intended actual murder, probably wanted to rough him up as an object lesson and it got out of hand.

I had my own run-in with the little ratpack as well, caught them in my back yard trying to make off with my Tomos Bullet, and their leader drew what appeared to be a weapon, only to find himself staring down the twin barrels of my grandaddys .410 bird gun, which was all I had handy at the time.

Faced with the unpleasant possibility of eating some birdshot, they humped it down the way.

Predictably, soon after the BCPD came to MY place and threatened to take the bird gun... and I really kinda hesitate to admit it, but some threats were exchanged by BOTH sides, and they left without filing charges OR taking the weapon.

This happened, mind, a couple days after the coroner collected the old guy and we were of no mind to wind up the same way, you see - me, girl, girls brother and both her parents, eye to eye with two officers and no intent to meekly comply.

So they left, told us to go to hell and if we DID shoot one of the little punks and do the world that much a favor, they were gonna bust the lot of us for murder and conspiracy to commit.

We told them to go to hell and not come back without a warrant in hand.

Then we had a few quiet discussions with the neighbors of that block and the next one over, and with a little help from the scanner and actions taken while the force was in no position to act, made the little bastards find somewhere else to play their nasty little games.

That ugly bit of business was the final straw in me leaving that neighborhood, despite having to ditch a reall good job in an area where they were few and far between.

And yeah, it colored my perception of the force significantly, as did quite a few others before it in that area.

Didn't help the locals opinion of em any, neither.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:31 AM

WASHNWEAR

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
An officer may be having a bad day, and may over react to what would otherwise be a benign situation.

Difference is when I'm having a bad day I don't TASE anyone or start a process that requires time, lawyers and money.

For that observation alone, CIA...THANK YOU.

It was like that when we got here!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You keep bring up tasing, but use of tasers is often a perfect example of a situation in which police react appropriately

Again, puhleeeeeze. Tasing is easy and requires less paperwork is all. It's what you do when you're angry enough to shoot someone, but not angry enough to plant evidence & go to court because of the blood.

Quote:
You want to simplify the issue down to a bunch bullying police, but its not that simple.

You want to simplify the issue down to an uncooperative and unsympathetic public, but it's not that simple.

Excessive Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
You want to simplify the issue down to an uncooperative and unsympathetic public, but it's not that simple.

As I said, many people don’t really care about the real issues here. They have decided to adopt this simplistic view that police are bullies, and that‘s all there is to it. You simply will not even entertain the idea that there could possibly be another dimension, and neither will many others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As I said, many people don’t really care about the real issues here. They have decided to adopt this simplistic view that police are bullies, and that‘s all there is to it.

Well, more accurately, that the system allows a certain percentage to be bullies, and this is an area I personally would appreciate having a zero-tolerance for.

Again, for the cheap seats: A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody here is saying that all or most cops are bad. No more so that saying Swiss cheese is made entirely of holes. It has A PERCENTAGE of holes.
Are we clear yet?

Precise Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 12:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As I said, many people don’t really care about the real issues here. They have decided to adopt this simplistic view that police are bullies, and that‘s all there is to it.
Well, more accurately, that the system allows a certain percentage to be bullies, and this is an area I personally would appreciate having a zero-tolerance for.

That’s still an over simplistic view, which completely ignores the responsibility of the public. I think that there is something very self-serving about this explanation, after all if you can convince yourself that all police encounters that don’t’ go the way you expect them to are solely the result of “bully-police” then you can absolve yourself of the responsibilities you have in such encounters - you are then free to be as big a bully or more to the point as unfair as you want.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s still an over simplistic view, which completely ignores the responsibility of the public.

Here's one for ya: You probably think my perception of the Rodney King incident is that it's all the cop's fault, right? Okay, I think they went too far, but Rodney was not a small fella, and even a big guy has to lay motionless in the face of dudes with guns, so it wasn't all 'them'.
That's to say that there ARE gray areas that come into my consciousness, it's just that it can be so lopsided when you deal with those in 'authority' vs the little guy.

"How's a girl supposed to get home, officer?"
"Somehow."

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s still an over simplistic view, which completely ignores the responsibility of the public.
Here's one for ya: You probably think my perception of the Rodney King incident is that it's all the cop's fault, right? Okay, I think they went too far, but Rodney was not a small fella, and even a big guy has to lay motionless in the face of dudes with guns, so it wasn't all 'them'.

That’s true, but the Rodney King case is many years old though. It is history not current events - if we have to wait almost 20 years for people to gain some degree of perspective in their view of the police then that doesn’t seem very fair or balanced. And the Rodney King case is a good example of the disastrous results of that lack of balance. People didn’t bother to even consider that Rodney King might not have been completely innocent in that encounter, they simply took the streets and murdered and pillaged to the tune of dozens dead and a billion dollars in damage.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 2:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Back to my cousin - being the straight arrow and fair-minded guy he is, when he was working with a bunch of federals that had, shall we say, a culture of corruption, and could neither go along with them nor rat them out (there were just so many more of them) he developed a stress ulcer and was finally transferred away.

Not all cops are bad - but when they are they usually exist in a culture that supports it. The fellow cops are either in on it or ignore it, the boss is either in on it or ignores it, and unless or until one can get incontrovertible PROOF AS A CITIZEN that such things happen it goes on, and on, and on, and on ... under the radar. And I'm not talking about minor bullying, either.

There are good cops out there - and then there are nests that should have been cleaned out years ago. To say that those nests don't exist is the height of ignorance.

(use of tasers) "... example of a situation in which police react appropriately"

AHEM ! May I remind you that tasers are alternatives to the use of GUNS. Somehow I don't think that if a person fails to lie down on the ground you'd automatically pull out your gun and shoot them. Or would you Finn ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 5:29 PM

We've already done the taser issue to death, and in fact come to a pretty much mutual conclusion that every discharge should be accounted for the same as the service weapon, and it should be placed second only to the service weapon in the force continuum.

Properly used, with appropriate safeguards on their use via policy and training, they could save lives that would otherwise be more at risk because the alternative would be shootin someone.

But those safeguards NEED to be there, because without them there is the temptation to use a semi-lethal weapon as a compliance device or "people remote" - which is a wholly inappropriate, but all too common use of them.

I do suspect that as these devices filter into the hands of the public, as they have begun to do via the companies marketing, we may well see criminals using them to avoid firearms charges, and probably some long overdue legal clarification as to whether it is legally considered a lethal, non-lethal, or less-lethal weapon - which is likely to impact police policy as well.

I will note that given the current expense and difficulty of operation, it's gonna be a while before that threat is any kinda real, mind, cause a gun is still cheaper and easier to use, but there is a niche for it, just as criminals used to use stunguns at one time, especially for crimes against women.

The problem with tasers is not the device itself, it's a policy problem, and needs to be handled at the level of those who SET policy, especially since they failed so badly on having policies and use of force guidelines in place ahead of time.

I don't hold out much hope for stuffing that genie back in the bottle, but what there is of it rests further up the chain of command than the officer on the street, who is often operating on a vague or non-existent policy regarding their use.

That's only HIS failure on the judgement call, the lack of policy is a failure of his bosses, and they should get their rightful share of flak for it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 5:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
AHEM ! May I remind you that tasers are alternatives to the use of GUNS. Somehow I don't think that if a person fails to lie down on the ground you'd automatically pull out your gun and shoot them. Or would you Finn ?

No use of a taser should ever be automatic, but yes, if the officer has reason to believe that the person will require physical restraint before he consents, the taser is a much safer option then physical restraint.

I know that it may seem like the taser is worse then physical restraint, but it only seems that way. Tasers are not alternatives to the use of guns. They are alternatives to the use of physical restraint. Guns are very high on the force continuum and tasers are very low - these two things are not in the same category, but because tasers can be effective at distance, they can extend the use of nonlethal force, into the range where only a gun might be effective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 11, 2008 6:28 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Do you support our current president?

The correct answer to that question is DICK CHENEY.

Any other answer results in Taser execution by Fatherland Security death squads.

This shall be expedited on future airline flights, when all passengers are required to wear Taser bracelets.

As we learned in Basic Military Training, when one fuks up, all must be punished.

Quote:
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision."
-Hero, Real World Event Discussions

Kiddie porn ring by Congressman Barney Frank and convicted GOP bank robber Larry King
www.voxfux.com/features/bush_child_sex_coverup/article_archive.htm

PS: My answer to the trick question is, that I actually signed under penalty of perjury in federal court:

Quote:
"Yes, I support the immediate arrest of our current president based upon probable cause that he aided and abetted the treasonous 9/11 Massacres, along with the immediate arrests of all those who aid and abet him."

"Remember the 2nd Amendment with the right to bear arms? That's not done for hunting or fishing, Our forfathers put that right in there so that we have the ability to rise up if our country becomes oppressive."
-Governor Jesse Ventura, Navy SEAL bomber, author of Don't Start the Revolution without Me, Colbert Report, April 7, 2008

"I kicked myself when it initially happened that the light didn't go off but I was so shocked that this thing had even taken place that I apologize for not being more aware. When I finally did watch Loose Change, I went through every emotion you could imagine, from laughing, crying, getting sick to my stomach, to the whole emotional thing. To me questions haven't been answered and are not being answered about 9/11. Two planes struck two buildings....but how is it that a third building fell 5 hours later? How could this building just implode into its own footprint 5 hours later - that's my first question - the 9/11 Commission didn't even devote one page to that in their big volume of investigation. How could those buildings fall at the speed of gravity - if you put a stopwatch on them both of those World Trade Center buildings were on the ground in ten seconds - how can that be? If you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the height of the World Trade Center in a vacuum it would hit the ground in 9.3 seconds and if you took that same billiard ball and dropped it 10 stories at a time and merely stopped it and started it it would take 30 seconds - if you dropped it every floor of the World Trade Center to the ground, simply stopping and starting it on gravity it would take over 100 seconds to reach the ground. Jet fuel is four fifths kerosene - which is not a hot burning fuel - and they wanted us to believe it melted these steel structured girders and caused these buildings to pancake collapse to the ground. I was on the site within two weeks after it happened and I saw none of these pancakes - wouldn't they all be piled up in a huge mass on the ground and yet everything was blown into dust - when you look at it from that aspect none of it makes any sense. Never before in the annuls of history has a fire caused a steel structure building to fall to the ground like these two did. Upon looking at the film in super-slow motion and the way the buildings fell and comparing that to the way that they do like a controlled demolition of a hotel in Las Vegas, they both fell identical. I did watch the film of Building 7 going down and in my opinion there's no doubt that that building was brought down with demolition. When I was watching Loose Change with a friend of mine - he happens to work for a company that helps build the Boeing airplanes and they said that when the engines completely disappeared and were destroyed, his response was, excuse my French - bullshit! I turned to him and said why and he said because they're made of titanium steel - they can't disintegrate. We don't want to lose our country, after all it's still our country and until they put us down we have the power."
-Governor Jesse Ventura (Independent), Navy SEAL bomber, Alex Jones Radio Show, April 2, 2008

www.prisonplanet.com/audio/020408ventura.mp3
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040208_jesse_ventura.htm

Loose Change #2
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

Loose Change Live in Hollywood by Pirate News TV
www.piratenews.org/911con.html

The Summer Glau Chronicles: Free downloads
http://www.fox.com/fod/player.htm?show=tscc

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
That’s true, but the Rodney King case is many years old though. It is history not current events - if we have to wait almost 20 years for people to gain some degree of perspective in their view of the police then that doesn’t seem very fair or balanced.

I bring that example up because it's universally known, it didn't take ME 20 years to 'gain perspective'

.
But what about my example of a bad cop in my above post? Was he having a bad day? Was he stressed on that quiet night? And I have other examples & stories...am I just a bad cop-magnet? Did I encounter the ONLY 4 bad cops on Long Island...or did I just get a percentage of a larger group? What's your opinion, Finn? Do you see me as some loud-mouth trouble-maker, bringing it down on himself?
If you need me to, I can detail all my encounters...

Troublemaker Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2008 5:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
But what about my example of a bad cop in my above post? Was he having a bad day? Was he stressed on that quiet night? And I have other examples & stories...am I just a bad cop-magnet? Did I encounter the ONLY 4 bad cops on Long Island...or did I just get a percentage of a larger group? What's your opinion, Finn? Do you see me as some loud-mouth trouble-maker, bringing it down on himself?
If you need me to, I can detail all my encounters...

What about my example that I’ve never met a bad cop? What I don’t see is any of your examples demonstrating that cops have some intrinsic non-human property to them - anymore then my experience suggest they are all saints. They are human beings who work in a high stress environment and they make mistakes, they have attitudes that get the better of them and sometimes they are real assholes, but mostly they are just like you and me. And you’re human too and quite frankly Chris, you have a stubborn attitude, a problem with authority and a desire to selectively read ideas on this board. I don’t know if that translates into your real life personality, but if it does, you’re probably a lot more frustrating for police to deal with then you think. I doubt you’re any more a saint then I am or any more a saint then those police you think are a band of assholes. What you should do is try to stop imagining that is all the fault of a some band of bad cops out there that wants to stick it to you and start understanding that we are all humans with human failings, and then maybe you‘ll understand my point.

And I'm not saying that any of those examples that you gave are not significant. It's quite possible that there could be a problem - but right now you seen to expect there to be a problem and that will cloud your judgement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:32 AM

Thanks for the reply Finn, that right there just cleared up any misunderstanding of your position on this for me- I think we agree much more than we disagree on the subject. We just argue our POV so intensely, I think we sometimes miss the overall point we're trying to make to each other.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
quite frankly Chris, you have a stubborn attitude, a problem with authority and a desire to selectively read ideas on this board. I don’t know if that translates into your real life personality, but if it does, you’re probably a lot more frustrating for police to deal with then you think.

Like Kirk said, I shall try to be less rigid in my thinking.

Actually, I am quite cooperative when it comes to Police- I operate from the angle that they deserve my total respect, until proven otherwise- like I said, I believe MOST of them to be a force for good in society.
I save my inner smartass for these boards & my employers.

Reminds me of something I read as a child:
"When she was good, she was very, very good, but when she was bad she was horrid." I guess that applies to me AND the Police...

The good Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 12, 2008 7:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Thanks for the reply Finn, that right there just cleared up any misunderstanding of your position on this for me- I think we agree much more than we disagree on the subject. We just argue our POV so intensely, I think we sometimes miss the overall point we're trying to make to each other.

Probably. I think that happens a lot.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Actually, I am quite cooperative when it comes to Police- I operate from the angle that they deserve my total respect, until proven otherwise- like I said, I believe MOST of them to be a force for good in society.
I save my inner smartass for these boards & my employers.

Me too. As big an asshole as I can be, I always “Yes, sir” or “Yes, Ma’am” every officer I meet. It may not seem like much but a cooperative and respectful attitude will reassure the officer that I am not a threat and in return they are more likely to respect me.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Reminds me of something I read as a child:
"When she was good, she was very, very good, but when she was bad she was horrid." I guess that applies to me AND the Police...

It probably applies to everyone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:40 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Tasers are not alternatives to the use of guns."

But that's exactly how they are marketed by the company that makes them:

According to Taser International (the company that manufactures tasers), tasers are a non-lethal alternative to deadly force. (And what might that 'deadly force' be one could ask himself ? The answer would be guns.) And that's how they are justified when the city councils debate whether or not to spend the money to buy them for their police. Rather than have to deal with police-involved shootings, tasers keep police protected without the legal hassles of guns. Or so the sales pitch goes.

Instead, they are being used as the next step above a verbal command. That's a LOT of mission creep that you don't admit to.

BTW - the existence of 'bad cops' goes far beyond an individual 'being human' having a bad day - and that includes planting evidence, rape, theft, murder and collusion. And the occasional dumping off of an ill and legless man direct from the ER where they refused to treat him onto the streets of skid row. But that is in addition to the bullies and creeps who feel they can do what comes naturally because they're behind a badge and they've never been caught or punished.

And for the record there are MANY high-stress, dangerous jobs where people don't react with violence. Just think of that next time you see a 'first responder' with a defibrillator in their hands or charging into a burning building.

***************************************************************

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, I guess what you're saying is that while you acknowledge some cops are "asshole cops", that occurs mostly from individual mistakes being made, and not from either a common mindset or a culture of corruption. In other words, you assign honorable motives to the majority of police officers, and that it's relatively easy to find a few egregious examples on YouTube simply by = Znumber of honest cops * Y probability of field errors.

I thought about this for quite a while. In my encounters with police, they've always been professional and followed the "rules of engagement". The two time when police (or security) presence frightened me was (1) when they responded on a "hot prowl" to a break-in at my home and (in the dark) mistook me for the robber and (2) when I was followed by [insert three-letter agency name here] on a bogus tip that I might have been the anthrax mailer.

But then, I'm a demographic that police automatically give a "pass" on: I'm white, and (unmasks self) female, middle class, college- educated, and at this point rather older than younger. So when I was pulled over for speeding (I was) and for a fixit ticket (lost gas cap) or when I reported an assault (attempted robbery) or failure to stop at a stop sign (WHAT stop sign?) or carrying rowdy passengers (OH LOOK! A FEMALE COP!) they "ma'am" me about as much as I "sir" or "ma'am" them and everything has been by the book.

BUT. I've worked with two colleagues who later became police. I have police members in my family, and I have good friends who do NOT fit my demographic.

What really opened my eyes to what "police culture" does to a person are the two people that I worked with who decided to bail out of the technical arena and go into police-work. The first one was a natural bully anyway, but the second...

The second was a Japanese-American male. By education, he was a sociologist. If anyone should have been aware of the effect of subcultures on a population, it would have been him. He was... when I worked with him... quiet and diffident. After one year as a cop he was about the same. After two years, he was transformed: Not only had he physically bulked up and adopted "the stance" (feet apart, arms crossed) he openly bragged about breaking headlights or tail lights in order to issue what the Montebello PD called "AH" tickets. In other words, if you "dissed" the police in any way, you'd pay... one way or another. Also, my friendship with others who DON'T fit "the demographic" tells me that "rules of engagement" are so flexible as to be meaningless.

In other words, the PDs (and other security agencies) pretty much make up the rules as they go along. And they have MANY sets of rules: one for old white ladies, one for young Hispanics, one for this neighborhood and another for that

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Tasers are not alternatives to the use of guns."

But that's exactly how they are marketed by the company that makes them:

According to Taser International (the company that manufactures tasers), tasers are a non-lethal alternative to deadly force. (And what might that 'deadly force' be one could ask himself ? The answer would be guns.) And that's how they are justified when the city councils debate whether or not to spend the money to buy them for their police. Rather than have to deal with police-involved shootings, tasers keep police protected without the legal hassles of guns. Or so the sales pitch goes.

That’s right. They extend non-lethal force into a region where previously guns were the only option. That does not mean they are an alternative to guns. They cannot replace guns. When lethal force is necessary, you cannot use a taser. BUT prior to tasers, lethal force or the threat of lethal force was often the only avenue available when the situation called for NON-lethal force. Tasers are an alternative to physical restraint - they do not and they cannot replace lethal force; they simple provide the option of non-lethal in a situation where non-lethal is called for.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:31 PM