If you want to read a very thought-provoking story may I suggest this one by Lazlo Zalezac. I put it right up there with his other story The Millionaire next door.
https://storiesonline.net/s/13830/the-future-of-miss-powers
If you want to read a very thought-provoking story may I suggest this one by Lazlo Zalezac. I put it right up there with his other story The Millionaire next door.
https://storiesonline.net/s/13830/the-future-of-miss-powers
It's not Thunder and Lightening (true story - I avoided that story for quite some time because the apparent typo in the name made me question the quality of the story) but it was still quite good.
Hell, most of his stories are very good.
It is a nice story. I prefer and recommend Thunder & Lightening, The Reset Manifesto and Emend by Eclipse, with The Future of Miss Powers after those, but not far behind.
The reason I would put Powers before the others is like The Millionaire it makes you think about what is being said. As a number of the people in the story tend to say "I didn't think about it that way."
Thunder & Lightening does that. Themes of self control vs rage, spousal abuse by the smaller female, racism being a two way street, single parent families and the lack of a father figure, child abuse by the mother, evil attitudes being generational. Self respect and productivity going hand in hand and able to be taught, etc.
Reset Manifesto is a political screed. As politics seems to be part of how you define yourself you may not enjoy it.
Emend by Eclipse has treatment of working women,the dyslexic, autistic, crippled and homosexual in a society that ignores, rejects or persecutes them.
All of Lazlo's works give the reader something to chew on mentally.
All of Lazlo's works give the reader something to chew on mentally.
Yep. Country Boys - the cultural and intellectual disconnect between LA and the midwest, or between cops and human beings, or between the ACLU and reality.
Hunter - the dark side of 'multiculturalism', privacy vs security...
But "Cookie Magic" and "Lawyers in Love" were not really deep...
Yep. Country Boys - the cultural and intellectual disconnect between LA and the midwest, or between cops and human beings, or between the ACLU and reality.
Care to clarify how you meant that?
Care to clarify how you meant that?
Ok, but you asked...
The problem with policing as it currently stands, most particularly in the US, but also in other countries to some extent, is that cops are trained to mistakenly believe that their lives are worth more (rather than less) than a civilians. And this misbelief is reinforced by a number of factors (medical assistance is faster for a 'officer down' call than for 'victim needs medical assistance', cops getting killed makes a bigger news article than any murder victim not murdered by some asshole cop, etc) so they start thinking they're better than the people they're allegedly protecting. So the ingrained feelings of superiority, and training emphasizing keeping themselves safe beyond others leads to lots of excessive force. Add in any tendency to being an asshole from before they were a cop, and you get problems. Maybe if they started training cops to be halfway decent human beings (rather than just hoping that the recruits qualify for that already) there wouldn't be calls to 'defund the police'...
The feds give them military gear turning them into a paramilitary force, causing them to behave more like an occupying army than community peace officers. (and they do this while claiming weapons of war have no place on the streets)
Too many of them act as if their uniform is their gang colors.
When covering for corrupt cops overrules honesty and the few of them who are looking into crimes committed by them are despised not respected. If you don't get rid of the bad apples the whole barrel spoils.
Too many of them act as if their uniform is their gang colors.
Exactly.
I thinc the first 'Myth Inc' boook had a rather insightful piece about how cops and criminals are basically the same pool, and if you paid cops enough, every criminal would be willing to become a cop.
Also, it's easy to understand how cops can be turned racist when you consider facts like for years the only way a white guy could qualify for the LAPD was to be a vet, stationed in a war zone, with MP experience... Or that they're not allowed to use statistics annd probability in their jobs if race is even a factor, irrespective of what works.
But yeah, giving criminals with badges APCs is a bad idea.
The feds give them military gear turning them into a paramilitary force, causing them to behave more like an occupying army than community peace officers.
What "military gear"? When did that become a big deal?
They do not use "military gear", other than what they have been using for almost a century actually. And it is almost always the result of criminals "upping the ante".
Not even Machine Guns are new. The Chicago, St. Louis, and many other departments started getting the Thompson and other such weapons after criminals started to use them. The rise of SWAT teams came after the activities of groups like the Weathermen, SLA, and others which mandated they change their own tactics.
And I lived just a few miles away from where the North Hollywood Bank Shootout was. Where the cops had to raid a gun store because the criminals had them badly outgunned.
"Military Gear" is largely a fear word, used by people who do not even understand what they are saying in the first place. And most of the gear that the police uses are better than what the military does anyways.
Which is why I always laugh when somebody advertises something as "military grade". Not realizing that in reality, the stuff the military uses is literally made by the lowest bidder. And often times by prisoners or charity groups like "Lighthouse For The Blind".
What "military gear"? When did that become a big deal?
The US DOD has an active program for lending surplus military equipment to local police departments. Armored vehicles, Aircraft, small arms, just about anything.
The US DOD has an active program for lending surplus military equipment to local police departments. Armored vehicles, Aircraft, small arms, just about anything.
Seattle and Portland both have Cougars, (why they need mine resistant vehicles, I have no idea) and these aren't the only surplus gear that is out there in police departments.
IIRC the MRAP production lines were running out of orders, so offering them to police departments was a way of pork barreling both the MIC and the local cops.
Of course driver training, spare parts and maintenance were not included in the deal.
Most of the MRAPs in the possession of local PDs were obtained from the DOD as surplus, not new units obtained directly from the manufacturer.
Not only does the deal not include spare parts and maintenance, it allows the DOD to reclaim the equipment if it needs it.
It's a scam to let the DOD mothball equipment it doesn't need at the moment but thinks it might need in the future without carrying maintenance and storage costs on the DOD's budget.
why they need mine resistant vehicles, I have no idea
anticipation of the next round of Antifa activities.
The US DOD has an active program for lending surplus military equipment to local police departments. Armored vehicles, Aircraft, small arms, just about anything.
Does that include vests, webbing etc..?
If so, why did the DOD have so many sets available in XXXXXL size?
Does that include vests, webbing etc..?
Yes.
If so, why did the DOD have so many sets available in XXXXXL size?
They didn't. But how many cops that fit that description do you see on the front lines of anti-riot squads?
They didn't. But how many cops that fit that description do you see on the front lines of anti-riot squads?
They struggle to get out of the APC, give them time, they'll get to the front line eventually. Though it will probably have moved by then.
The US DOD has an active program for lending surplus military equipment to local police departments. Armored vehicles, Aircraft, small arms, just about anything.
Yes, and?
Armored vehicles, not like they had not been doing that for decades already. SWAT teams have been using commercial "Armored Cars" since they first started appearing in the 1960's. Back then, they simply paid to have them made, or bought them from armored car companies. Today there are a lot of newer ones surplus, as the military has gone through at least 3 generations of them in the last 20 years.
The same with weapons. Law enforcement has always used the same ones as the military, the M1911 was popular with many departments as so many were available after WWI and WWII. And right now the tail is even starting to wag the dog, as the military looks like it is going to dump the venerable M9 in favor of the Glock that law enforcement has been using for decades.
And aircraft, the exact same thing. Most law enforcement early on went with the UH1 "Huey", because there were tons of them available surplus, as well as mechanics and pilots to keep them in the air.
Would you rather they refuse to take the surplus equipment if available, and instead but them brand new at full price? Or that they simply stop using them?
Then we can simply return to the days before the SLA and North Hollywood. The last one which left 20 people shot (police and civilians alike), and many would likely have died if the SWAT team had not arrived, and used an armored truck to evacuate the wounded in safety.
They even had to commandeer one from a courier company, as the high powered rifles the criminals had were more powerful than the armor on their own armored SWAT vans could handle. They had been purchased with only the idea that they needed to protect those inside against handguns. Not high powered automatic weapons.
Not unlike the shootout with the SLA 20 years previously. Where the cops went against 6 people, all armed with large caliber automatic weapons and hand made grenades. Who fired over 4,000 rounds at cops and FBI before it was over.
Where all the cops could do really was hide behind their cars, until a tear gas round set the house on fire and put an end to it. Even SWAT with their higher powered weapons were ineffective. Only 1 of the 6 was shot, all of the rest burned while trying to hide from the fire.
Armored vehicles, not like they had not been doing that for decades already. SWAT teams have been using commercial "Armored Cars" since they first started appearing in the 1960's. Back then, they simply paid to have them made, or bought them from armored car companies.
Tracked Armored Personnel Carriers are a bit different from the non military armored cars they have access to.
So are surplus MRAPs.
Tracked Armored Personnel Carriers are a bit different from the non military armored cars they have access to.
So are surplus MRAPs.
Yea, it costs the departments a lot less money. With the 1033 program, it costs departments nothing. They only pay a few thousand dollars for shipping, and any maintenance costs.
Unlike an armored car like what say Brinks uses, or Wells Fargo. Which start at around $200k and go up from there. Even a used 10 year old one will set you back well over $40k.
So I guess you would be happier if these departments were paying a quarter of a million each, rather than essentially paying just "postage and handling".
And not many are coming up in surplus anymore. In the last decade Brinks even bought out at least 3 other companies, primarily in order to get their hands on their vehicles.
As far as I know, the only departments that use tracked ones are primarily in hurricane and tornado country. I know some Florida departments had M113s, but they were all part of their "Disaster Relief" sections, a great vehicle in case you need to rescue somebody in 100 mile an hour winds.
The only other one I am aware of was the one the LAPD got in the 1990's. And that was because at that time the crack houses were starting to become like bunkers, and the last thing a cop wants or needs is to be banging on a heavy reinforced steel door for 20 minutes trying to get in. So they bought one and put a big ram in the front to punch their way through the door if needed.
So I guess you would be happier if these departments were paying a quarter of a million each, rather than essentially paying just "postage and handling".
No, they shouldn't have them at all. They're a police force, not the army.
No, they shouldn't have them at all. They're a police force, not the army.
Then maybe we should pass a law, forbidding criminals from using automatic weapons and body armor. And to stop them from turning their drug dens into concrete bunkers.
Yea, we will just pass a law. Then the crooks will all simply go back to using cheap .38 specials again.
Yea, we will just pass a law. Then the crooks will all simply go back to using cheap .38 specials again.
Didn't happen in Australia when they banned all guns, so I doubt it will happen in the US. If the crims in the US act like they did in Australia and upgrade the weapons the US crims will upgrade to 25mm auto-cannons and rockets for street crimes.
And to stop them from turning their drug dens into concrete bunkers.
You can penetrate those walls with a few yards of detcord and a couple gallons of water.
And to stop them from turning their drug dens into concrete bunkers.
You don't need ex military equipment to deal with an armed gang who have turned their drug den into a concrete bunker with presumably steel doors...
You just need a welder.
You just need a welder.
...willing to work while taking fire from automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
willing to work while taking fire from automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
Fair point, but eventually the police will run out of ammo, so just wait.
:)
...willing to work while taking fire from automatic or semi-automatic weapons.
He's a welder. He can build himself a portable steel shelter to work under. Unless someone brings a M2 or an anti-tank weapon to the party.
He's a welder. He can build himself a portable steel shelter to work under. Unless someone brings a M2 or an anti-tank weapon to the party.
Or a Molotov Cocktail, which would make him VERY uncomfortable, to say the least. And mix in Jell-o™ for more effect.
Or mix inappropriate (appropriate?) household cleaners and gas him out with chlorine gas.
There is no need for a welder. Exothermic/thermite welding will do the job at low risk on steel doors. Of course fire is a significant risk, but still gets the job done either way.
Or if you are worried about safety of delivery. Pour concrete over their bunker from helicopters.
https://www.imsheli.com/project/ground-effect-concrete-bucket/
You don't need ex military equipment to deal with an armed gang who have turned their drug den into a concrete bunker with presumably steel doors...
You just need a welder.
And do you want to be the poor schmuck going up to the door with explosive tanks on your back in a firefight in order to do that?
And that does not always work. And a lot of times, the LAPD APC did not even try to go through the door, they actually drove it through the wall. That was much weaker than the doors and windows were on them damned things.
But I have to admit, I should not be surprised at how many in here think nothing bad about criminals outgunning cops. Maybe I should do the same thing next time I deploy. Tell the ones on the other side to throw away their guns, and we can just throw flowers at each other.
And do you want to be the poor schmuck going up to the door with explosive tanks on your back in a firefight in order to do that?
Ok, I have to ask. Why would a welder need "explosive tanks" one his back..?? The idea is to weld the doors shut, not cut them open..!!
And do you want to be the poor schmuck going up to the door with explosive tanks on your back in a firefight in order to do that?
Oxygen Acetylene tanks AKA gas welding are what you're thinking of.
https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/job-knowledge/welding-and-joining-process-classification-001
Specific to topic, fusion welding processes. There are a few hundred variants to choose from, and a maybe a few dozen primaries.
As I mentioned before, Exothermic/thermite welding would do it with minimal equipment. While it typically requires a crucible, the right clay with the right mix of alum/iron powder could simply be stuck to the door and ignited. No codes would pass it, but it damn sure would seal the doors.
ETA: If you want to get fancy, use a backpack welder.
https://www.zena.net/htdocs/welders/BPW.shtml
Those and variants typically only have 20% duty cycle, but that's all you'd need to seal the door.
I still vote for burying the drug gang bunker in concrete dropped from helicopters.
You do seem very set on that...
I still vote for burying the drug gang bunker in concrete dropped from helicopters.
OK, a compromise then. Weld them in so the concrete has time to set.
the LAPD APC did not even try to go through the door, they actually drove it through the wall.
And when they get the address wrong and there are little kids playing on the other side of the wall the cost of the APC will be peanuts compared to the lawsuit.
And when they get the address wrong and there are little kids playing on the other side of the wall the cost of the APC will be peanuts compared to the lawsuit.
Police officers have been granted 'qualified immunity' after shooting a child during an attempt to shot a non-threatening dog and loosing off numerous errant shots. And there are no 'takings' implications for the police destroying your house even if the suspect they're looking for is not there...
it costs departments nothing. They only pay a few thousand dollars for shipping, and any maintenance costs.
Maintenance costs for the military vehicles are nothing to sneeze at and can run in to the tens of thousands of $/year.
As far as I know, the only departments that use tracked ones are primarily in hurricane and tornado country.
I'm in south eastern Wisconsin. My local Sheriff has a tracked APC. AFIK they've never had any kind of emergency that would actually require any kind of armored vehicle, much less a tracked APC.
Maintenance costs for the military vehicles are nothing to sneeze at and can run in to the tens of thousands of $/year.
And do the math. It costs that much to maintain an armored car also. They are not cheap, about every 2 years they need the engine rebuilt as well as the suspension. That is why decade old ones go for a "cheap" $40k, they are already damned near used up. You will rarely ever see one more than 10 years old in use.
So let's use your numbers. Say it is $20k a year for maintenance. With a lifespan of say 10 years, they are still coming out ahead getting one of those rather than spending a quarter of a million on a new one.
Except the military ones will last a lot longer, as they are designed to last for decades. Hell, I still laugh because my assigned "HMMWV" was built during the Reagan Administration. And when I was in PATRIOT, I was the only crew member in the Battalion that was older than my equipment
I'm in south eastern Wisconsin. My local Sheriff has a tracked APC. AFIK they've never had any kind of emergency that would actually require any kind of armored vehicle, much less a tracked APC.
You don't have ice storms and flooding there? In Florida they are also used because they are amphibious. Heck, when I was in Japan 30 years ago one of the ambulances on base was a "Gamma Goat". Already long phased out, it was one of only a handful still in the inventory across the entire Marine Corps. But they kept it, because if there was an injury in some of the remote training areas, that was the only way they could get to them.
You don't have ice storms and flooding there?
Not to the point that a good 4X4 truck couldn't get through or go around.
Again, AFIK it's never been used for anything law enforcement related. The last time it was used at all was 4 or 5 years ago when it was sent to help with a search and rescue half way across the state.
The truth is around 45-47 of the 50 states could get away with one SWAT team for the whole state maintained by the state police.
And the other 3-5 states only have 1 or 2 cities that really need their own local SWAT team.
To justify the expense of the SWAT teams, local departments start using them to serve petty warrants with risky dynamic entries in cases where there is no justification for such tactics.
The truth is around 45-47 of the 50 states could get away with one SWAT team for the whole state maintained by the state police.
probably true, but the response time would be horrendous most of the time.
probably true, but the response time would be horrendous most of the time.
For the majority of the states, the state SWAT team would only need to deploy once or twice a decade. I don't see the response time as that much of an issue.
For the majority of the states, the state SWAT team would only need to deploy once or twice a decade. I don't see the response time as that much of an issue.
Swat teams are like that saying, "The police are only 5 minutes away when seconds count."
Swat teams are like that saying, "The police are only 5 minutes away when seconds count."
No, It's more like I've got this really expensive tool(high maintenance costs as well as up front costs), but I only need to use it once every 12 years.
The truth is around 45-47 of the 50 states could get away with one SWAT team for the whole state maintained by the state police.
probably true, but the response time would be horrendous most of the time.
I suspect that one SWAT team for each of the 20 largest metropolitan areas in the US and at most one other team for each state would provide adequate response time. All 70 (or less) maintained by the state police.
The only other one I am aware of was the one the LAPD got in the 1990's. And that was because at that time the crack houses were starting to become like bunkers, and the last thing a cop wants or needs is to be banging on a heavy reinforced steel door for 20 minutes trying to get in. So they bought one and put a big ram in the front to punch their way through the door if needed.
They got it in 84 and they had to stop using it because they kept going to the wrong address.
they kept going to the wrong address.
It amazes me how often the police go to the wrong address, and since the normal response these days is to send in the SWAT team some innocent person ends up shot. If an ordinary person waved a submachine gun around with their finger on the trigger and negligently killed a sleeping child they would be prosecuted, not a cop though.
not a cop though.
Because of judge-invented 'qualified immunity'. The Supreme Court took a statute intended to make it possible for people to sue for violations of their civil rights and stood it on its head to make it nearly impossible to do so.
Tw0Cr0ws
If an ordinary person waved a submachine gun around with their finger on the trigger and negligently killed a sleeping child they would be prosecuted, not a cop though.
Because of judge-invented 'qualified immunity'.
Qualified immunity does not apply to criminal prosecution.
And yes, cops could be prosecuted for such things if the local DA had any integrity and a spine.
Qualified immunity does not apply to criminal prosecution.
No, but criminal prosecution is even MORE rare than a successful civil suit. And the 'qualified immunity' theory has had severe impact on charging decisions by prosecutors. They know they can't be second-guessed by a civil jury, so they are less likely to file criminal charges.
if the local DA had any integrity and a spine.
They are lawyers and politicians, so good luck on that.
The problem is, you can't (in most cases) sue someone individually for actions taken acting for their employer, you can only sue the employer. Then, since the employer of the cops is the government, you get sovereign immunity.
If the politicians are willing to throw the guilty cop under the bus, by claiming that the cop's actions went beyond what was authorized so that his actions were those of a private citizen...? Well, the union would throw a fit, and probably have every cop call in sick for the next week, or however long it took to make the politicians fall in line.
The problem is, you can't (in most cases) sue someone individually for actions taken acting for their employer, you can only sue the employer. Then, since the employer of the cops is the government, you get sovereign immunity.
That was the entire point of the statute - to allow those kinds of suits. SCOTUS turned it on its head, and did the exact opposite of what Congress intended.
That was the entire point of the statute - to allow those kinds of suits. SCOTUS turned it on its head, and did the exact opposite of what Congress intended.
The US has had a lot of Justices that should've been shot.
The duty of the Supreme Court is simple: listen to arguments as to whether some aspect of a law is constitutional or not, determine if there's precedent on those arguments, and determine which argument has more merit. Not invent new rights or interpret laws other than to specify what the only interpretation that would not be unconstitutional would be (if something was vague but otherwise mostly unconstitutional).
The duty of the Supreme Court is simple: listen to arguments as to whether some aspect of a law is constitutional or not, determine if there's precedent on those arguments, and determine which argument has more merit. Not invent new rights or interpret laws other than to specify what the only interpretation that would not be unconstitutional would be (if something was vague but otherwise mostly unconstitutional).
They are also suppose to be unbiased and non-pollical. I doubt there ever was one that fit that ideal,
to specify what the only interpretation that would not be unconstitutional would be (if something was vague but otherwise mostly unconstitutional).
In the first year of law school they are taught a basic legal principle 'void for vagueness', if some law is so vague as to be that wide open for interpretation it is void.
Do you have some supporting data in the form of recognized studies to support those claims?
Also as an aside, what countries have you been in to offer a contrast between US cops and others?
My personal experiences are limited to US and Canada cops. For other countries I've relied on first person accounts from those I know from other countries.
Also, police unions are no different than other unions. Loom how the teachers unions protected all the child molesters or other typical unions protect thieves and junkies from being fired. Corrupt cops get union protection as well as other cops either covering for them or at least looking the other way.
I honestly doubt that the killing of unarmed suspects is a racist thing as much as a cop thing. Because it happens to "white trash" fairly often without as much news coverage. (And I can think of three different forces in Canada where it's 'allegedly' happened repeatedly. It's not just a US thing.)
If I read your posts correctly, most of what you've stated is personal opinion absent any hard data backup to that opinion. What influenced that opinion is extremely grey, as most people really can't pin down where they got their opinions.
As for this;
"or between cops and human beings"
One can only assume without any substantive clarification that you don't consider cops human beings. I would differ with that strongly.
That leaves us with opinion verses opinion. No one really wins that type of argument/debate, but I will state my opinion and let the readers decide.
Cops are in fact human, with all the benifits and detriments that come with the condition. That means just like the rest of us, there will be good and bad ones. Where some hard data does come from is Interpol, Justice department, and other such organizations. That data states that the typical background checks to become a cop weeds out 'most' of the worst elements, but not all. Further, the press is quick to post up bad cop stories, but slow to post up good cop stories. That is another datum point that can be verified by research. That negatively influences many people's minds. One bad cop story trumps 100 good cop stories.
It is my opinion based on the above that at least the majority of cops in first world nations are in fact decent people trying to do a very difficult job. Despite the narrative portrayed by the media.
As a counter point; unlike the rest of the citizenry, when a cop is rogue/bad, they usually don't do it in half measures. People everywhere have good and bad in them. The ratio of that expressed being controlled by their moral and ethical compasses. A cop that went bad has a tendency to go really bad as something broke his or her compasses. A bad cop, is in a lot of ways, far worse than the average criminal for that reason. The average criminal at least has some form of compass that functions, drug addicts excluded.
I've personally experienced both forms of cops first hand, and observed them in multiple locations. North America, Central America, South America, Western and Eastern Europe, parts of Asia (Philippines, Japan, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia Malaysia, and India), parts of the Middle East, Russia, and three of the stans.
I found good and bad in all of them adjusted for cultural differences. For the bad cops, American and Canadian variants are pussy cats when compared to some of those locations. Argue with a Venezuelan bad cop, you'll be lucky if you get buried and not left to the carrion. Dispute a bad cop in Uzbekistan and you'll end up bloodied and broken if not dead. Dispute a bad cop in some parts of Mexico and you end up in jail with everything you had on you confiscated.
There are good and bad cops everywhere.
The alternative is no cops at all. I can assure you from personal experience of having been in such areas, that alternative is worse. The counter points to law and order are lawlessness and chaos. Life in such areas is extremely brutal. Examples of such areas are parts of the Stans, Somalia, parts of Transnistria, Ossetia, etc. Some of those places have some guys wandering around in a uniform, but no one is going to mistake them for actual cops. They are more enforcers for whichever criminal element is in power at the time.
It is my personal opinion that many people screaming to defund the police are in fact setting themselves and their neighbors up for a vacation in hell. They have no perspective that allows them to see the end results of what they are asking for before it's too late.
Could the cops in Canada and America do better? Yes. Are they the worst examples of cops? Not by any reasonable standard.
There are good and bad cops everywhere.
I have to disagree with this.
The good cops are few and far between and rarely last long.
A cop who engages in no direct misconduct, but looks the other way and ignores it when other cops engage in any sort of misconduct is not a good cop.
And they all look the other way. Those that don't get hounded off the force or worse.
The good cops are few and far between and rarely last long.
That is your opinion, one I disagree with. We'll have to leave it at that.
You stated:
It is my personal opinion that many people screaming to defund the police are in fact setting themselves and their neighbors up for a vacation in hell. They have no perspective that allows them to see the end results of what they are asking for before it's too late.
You're wrong. The people who are leading the charge want the total destruction of Western society. It's their expressed aim - just read about the goals of the BLM movement even with their recent sanitization of their websites.
I believe you replied to the wrong person. The comments you quoted were mine.
Simply stating "you're wrong" does not make it so.
The people who are leading the charge want the total destruction of Western society. It's their expressed aim - just read about the goals of the BLM movement even with their recent sanitization of their websites.
Much has been said by many people. A few of the more radical people have said something along the lines of what you stated though none exactly so that I'm aware of. I've no doubt there are people who actually feel that way, but they are in the extreme minority.
There is always an extreme minority in any large grouping of people.
As a general rule, I ignore such people. It's what the majority of the group actually does that matters. If their views extended outside of specific cities, there would be much more to worry about. As it is, the worst elements are confined to places like NYC, Seattle, Portland, and a couple of others. Even within those cities, it's limited to specific locations within them.
Everything else is media spin which is attempting to make the condition appear larger than what it actually is. If, and that's a big if, the problem spins out of control, it will most likely have been the media whipped frenzy that causes it.
Ironically, only in a society of law and order can the free speech the media often quotes exist. If they manage to whip it up to the point western society dies, then they will no longer have free speech or anything that even remotely resembles it.
I just don't see the majority of western society going along with that plan.
It is my personal opinion that many people screaming to defund the police are in fact setting themselves and their neighbors up for a vacation in hell.
Without a reasonably armed population, I don't disagree.
And yes, I've heard cops in some places are far worse than in NA... Russia and the Philippines, for example. Or Iran. But you'd asked who I'd personally experienced.
But you'd asked who I'd personally experienced.
Yes I did. To which I responded. There was no rancor or other negative intended in my response. Our opinions do not agree with each other, but at least they are our own and not spoon feed by others.
How many people (prior to COVID) do you interact with every day? By interact, I mean anything from a passing nod to giving someone directions to helping change a tire?
Now, in how many of those interactions did you have to stop and think "will this person try to kill me"?
That's what cops face every day. There are way too many people who would rather die in a shootout than pay a $50 traffic fine.
That's what cops face every day. There are way too many people who would rather die in a shootout than pay a $50 traffic fine.
Bull shit. There are more than 800K cops in the US. Not counting the unrest this year, the 50 year average for the number of cops killed by felonious means nation wide in the US per year is under 100.
The vast majority of cops who are injured or die on the job are victims of traffic accidents.
Now, in how many of those interactions did you have to stop and think "will this person try to kill me"?
Usually, I only think that when dealing with a cop.
I've known/hung out with/done business with any number of criminals (I'm not a criminal these days), only ever really worried about a very small group (because that group wasn't getting along very well with another group I spent time with) but practically every time I deal with a cop, that thought is in my mind.
Usually, I only think that when dealing with a cop.
See, this is why they had to cancel TV shows such as "Live PD" and "Cops". Public outcry over "police brutality" forced cops to use dash cams. The dash cams captured people opening fire on cops without justification, trying to run over them, etc. Very embarassing, got we've got to "cancel" that truth.
The dash cams captured people opening fire on cops without justification, trying to run over them
Hell, I'd pay for a channel that had that type of footage regularly. Especially body cams that had the 'victim' on a domestic call go psycho on the officers for interfering.
I think the bigger issue was finding people willing to sign releases so the footage could be used.
Hell, I'd pay for a channel that had that type of footage regularly. Especially body cams that had the 'victim' on a domestic call go psycho on the officers for interfering.
I ran IT for a Sheriff's department decades ago. My favorite deputy became the IT liaison. He accepted that role after spending a week in intensive care because a battered wife decided to bash his (the deputy's) skull in with an iron skillet when he went to arrest her husband who the deputy had witnessed beating the wife to a pulp.
To a man, that group of deputies stated they preferred trying to arrest a drug dealer or murderer than go on a 'domestic abuse' call.
To a man, that group of deputies stated they preferred trying to arrest a drug dealer or murderer than go on a 'domestic abuse' call.
Every former cop I've ever heard from on the subject always said domestics were the one call they didn't want to take. Mainly because the second someone else gets involved, the "us against them" picture becomes the couple against the outsider butting in. Victim could be seconds from death, but attacking as soon as a back was turned.
Just goes to show.. Bitches Be Crazy.
My police officer brother once advised that, in that situation 'always punch the girlfriend first. You're guaranteed the element of surprise '
I think the bigger issue was finding people willing to sign releases so the footage could be used.
Nope, they were both canceled in the wake of complaints by activists after George Floyd's death in custody.
See, this is why they had to cancel TV shows such as "Live PD" and "Cops".
It may have been because of this as one reason.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/06/10/live-pd-destroyed-video-police-killing-javier-ambler-ii-2019/5332903002/
My issues with cops is they seem to not care that we have 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment Rights.
First off the courts over and over and police departments have agreed that people have the 1st amendment right to film the police in public so long as they are not interfering with their duties. police don't want you filming them and will go to extreme lengths to deny you that right. They will threaten to arrest you for interfering or you are breaking the 2 party consent law. They will threaten to take your phone as evidence even though that takes a court order to do. They will claim your phone is a weapon, they are afraid you are live streaming and may cause others to show up. And the best is that you don't need to film them because they have body cams. Even though there are a number of times when the footage was subpoenaed the footage was reported lost.
Under the 4th Amendment we have the right against unreasonable search and seizure of both our person and property. Police must have a reasonable suspicion in order to stop and detain you. (Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts") Just a simple 911 call by a unknown person must be taken as fact with no proof for a cop to detain you under reasonable suspicion. Now they need probable cause. Under reasonable suspicion they are allowed to pat you down on the outside of your cloths only. If they feel something like drugs or a weapon that will give them probable cause to search you further. And sometimes they will just make thing up in hopes they get lucky. The one used more and more even though there is no way to prove it until after a search is "I smell marijuana"
As for the 5th amendment some cops have been recorded saying that you only have that right until after they informed you of that right. That is a lie. but then again the courts have ruled that cops have the right to lie to you. A cop can also arrest you for a law that doesn't exist because the cop made a honest mistake thinking it did.
Now on to one of the biggest lie ever told.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Once a cop arrests you he is declaring you guilty, otherwise why would he arrest you?
Then you are taken to jail where you are booked as if you are guilty. If you can't afford bail you may spend days, weeks, months or even years until a trial as if you are guilty.
Now on to one of the biggest lie ever told.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Once a cop arrests you he is declaring you guilty, otherwise why would he arrest you?
Then you are taken to jail where you are booked as if you are guilty. If you can't afford bail you may spend days, weeks, months or even years until a trial as if you are guilty.
In the history of English common law, the 'innocence until proven guilty by a jury of your peers' developed long after the King began detaining suspects. A balancing act resulted in several things
a) The requirement of particularized search and arrest warrants (no blanket 'arrest anyone who might be a criminal' or 'search for any evidence of any criminal activity' warrants could be issued). In the US, that means 'stating the person or things to be seized'.
b) Jury trials of ones peers (in the US, individual citizens from the same regional area as the accused).
c) Bail (in the US, relative to the crime committed and the risk the accused poses to the community)
d) The right to counsel and the right to compel witnesses
e) The right against self-incrimination
All of these have to be understood in the context in which they developed - the sovereign seizing individuals and things on the mere say so of his agents (or himself). The Bill of Rights was meant to codify common law as it developed over the previous 500+ years.
b) Jury trials of ones peers (in the US, individual citizens from the same regional area as the accused).
That's how a drunken thug like Steven Gerrard got off scot free from punching a DJ unconscious - he was tried in Liverpool where he's considered a demigod.
AJ
Jury trials of ones peers (in the US
...12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Bail (in the US, relative to the crime committed and the risk the accused poses to the community)
Also depends on likelihood of being a flight risk.
a) The requirement of particularized search and arrest warrants (no blanket 'arrest anyone who might be a criminal' or 'search for any evidence of any criminal activity' warrants could be issued). In the US, that means 'stating the person or things to be seized'.
Most of the time they don't need warrants to arrest or just search anymore. All they need is to find probable cause to do that.
"Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
b) Jury trials of ones peers (in the US, individual citizens from the same regional area as the accused).
Up until a few decades ago that consisted of only white men (Women not allowed)
c) Bail (in the US, relative to the crime committed and the risk the accused poses to the community)
Again if you can't afford bail what difference does it make if you are just accused? You are still in jail as if you are guilty. Sometimes longer then the crime you are accused of warrants.
d) The right to counsel and the right to compel witnesses
And the richer you are the better counsel you have. If you can't afford counsel one (overworked underpaid prefers plea deals then proving you didn't do it) counsel will be appointed for you.
I think you missed the entire point of what I was saying. I was pointing out the assumption of police powers. And I concluded with:
What's happened since is a different story...
2020 is not 1789, and the roots of American jurisprudence in English common law are difficult to find, as we've opted for statutory law. But to understand the Constitution, you have to know that (along with the philosophical underpinnings of the Declaration of Independence).
I have an older brother who is a retired police officer.
Since he's become retired, his social media pronouncements have caused his nieces and nephews to 'unfriend ' him because of his racist and aggressive stance.
Now, I'm sure he's a lovely person - he's my brother but I am also sure his view of life has been shaped by his experience of a long career in policing.
I this agree that I dont know what he had to deal with in his policing role day by day.
I have seen him deal with people in a firm, determined and respectful way and I have seen his determination to be sure that the rules are followed.
All of this is a preamble however, to my belief that his life view is deeply flawed by a systemic narrative that often has political bias.
Before I go on, he's a UK policeman. The same sort of issues that affect the USA police are not the same there.
When I listen to his anecdotes, I often hear his wistful tone when he wishes he could have the same level of power as the American cops he knows.
He is dumbfounded by my comments that Canadian or US police that I know have no real fear of getting pulled over for DUIs
The police in the UK tend to come down harder on police that break the rules. He would be always on guard not to drink too much because he knew the traffic cop would not hesitate to issue a ticket.
Here in north America, the cops have the notion of 'professional courtesy ' and I know of cases where police have been waved through. They get to walk to the front of the line at nightclubs (I was with a group of NY troopers and saw that interaction first hand)
What i see in the way police forces are trained is a disconnect between their supposed role as servants and protectors and their belief that they are somehow the enforcers and superiors.
My brother was a good cop. He would no doubt, called a colleague on any malpractice. But once the career was over, his professional filter came off and the true beliefs that underlay much of his policing came to the front.
None of this surprises me. It must be truly exhilarating to be given that level of empowerment. What truly astounds me is that the cops I went into that nightclub with, each individual really friendly and good fun, completely expected to get in. Not because they knew the owners or because they were promised access by a grateful owner. They expected that by flashing a badge the club would not want to displease a potentially aggressive police force.
The US and Canadian police could do with taking anleaf out of the UK force's book about how to de-escalate confrontation. My brother did not carry a gun. And although he could be armed in minutes if necessary, had to deal with incidents by being empathetic rather than being a soldier.
The police in the UK tend to come down harder on police that break the rules. He would be always on guard not to drink too much because he knew the traffic cop would not hesitate to issue a ticket.
That's not the impression given by the UK media, or by UK cops of my own acquaintance.
AJ
That's not the impression given by the UK media, or by UK cops of my own acquaintance.
From what I've read, Finbar's cop relative was a real asshole... maybe he wasn't liked much by the other cops, so they actually would've taken delight in busting him?
Of course, he was probably the type who would've given them a hard time too, so they saw no need to cover for him...
An honest asshole is better than a friendly crook when they have the power of the government backing them.
He is dumbfounded by my comments that Canadian or US police that I know have no real fear of getting pulled over for DUIs
A Denver police officer was caught driving on I-25 at 143mph while drunk, the police union prevented him being fired. Why would a cop fear a DUI?
One other point which I was remiss in saying above, is that English common law operates under the basic theory that the sovereign has certain powers - police powers, taxation, military powers, etc. The US Constitution assumes that to be the case, and is a limiting document, which assumes the aforementioned powers, and delegates a subset of them from the states to the Federal government.
What's happened since is a different story...
I remember once a cop told me I must be guilty because I was acting nervous. I told him I was acting nervous because he had the power to destroy my life even if I wasn't guilty. If arrested you have a good chance of losing you job which may lead to losing your house which may lead to losing your family which may lead to you living on the street.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serpico
During a drug bust in 1971, Frank is shot in the face when his backup fails to act. He recovers, though with lifelong effects from his wound, and finally receives a detective's gold shield but rejects it. He testifies before the Knapp Commission, a government inquiry into NYPD police corruption. An epilogue reveals that he resigned from the NYPD on June 15, 1972. Awarded the Medal of Honor for "conspicuous bravery in action", he moved to Switzerland
.
It was probably his backup that shot him in the face.
I will repeat, in my opinion any cop that tolerates misconduct by other cops is not one of the good cops.
There are exceedingly few good cops, because this is what happens to the good cops.
There are exceedingly few good cops, because this is what happens to the good cops.
OK, I bow to someone who has more experience with cops than I do.
OK, I bow to someone who has more experience with cops than I do.
I just use a stricter definition of good cop than you do. The ones who turn their backs and cover for the bad cops are bad cops in my book.
ETA:
Divide the cops into three groups.
1. These are the cops that use excessive force, violate peoples rights, break the law.
2. Cops who don't use excessive force, don't violate peoples rights, don't break the law. But they do nothing when they witness other cops doing those things.
3. Cops who refuse to tolerate other cops engaging in misconduct. They report it. They may even attempt to physically intervene to stop it, and/or arrest the perpetrator.
I will stipulate that group 1 is relatively small.
However, group 3 is even smaller. The vast majority of cops fall into group 2.
The way I define "good cop" only group 3 qualifies.
Serpico was a good cop and he was very nearly killed for it.
is this thread xd?
I don't recall xkcd covering the contents of this thread, but my memory isn't perfect...
It always amazes me that those who rail against the teachers union for protecting bad teachers don't seem to have a problem with police unions protecting bad cops.
One of the biggest problems is the police unions are against departments doing background checks on hiring cops from other departments so that they don't find out why they were fired.
t those who rail against the teachers union for protecting bad teachers don't seem to have a problem with police unions protecting bad cops.
I object to all public sector unions. The teachers and cops just have the most visible crimes to answer for, but they're all bad.
The teachers and cops just have the most visible crimes to answer for, but they're all bad.
Prison guards are probably worse.
I find it amusing that responses concentrate on the difficulty in welding the doors shut and ignore the practicality and economy of dealing with a drug gang by entombing them in their own bunker and simply waiting a while before bulldozing the entire site.
Saves time police time and public money whilst guaranteeing the gang is no longer a problem to the community. It also serves as a cheap yet effective lesson, "Pour encourager les autres".
Hell, in that case, just back up a cement truck and dump a yard of concrete in front of the door.
I was thinking the same thing, one of those concrete pumper trucks with the long arm to reach over a building so they don't need to get close.
So you want the other drug dealers to do a better job?
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of "pour encourager les autres"
"In order to encourage the others" said ironically of an action (such as an execution) carried out as a warning to others
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of "pour encourager les autres"
"In order to encourage the others" said ironically of an action (such as an execution) carried out as a warning to others
Yes, although I've previously only seen it in reference to the British Admiralty. Specifically, execute an officer who doesn't win so that others will be more intent on carrying out their mission.
@joyR
It seems you misunderstand the meaning of "pour encourager les autres"
"In order to encourage the others" said ironically of an action (such as an execution) carried out as a warning to others
Yes, although I've previously only seen it in reference to the British Admiralty. Specifically, execute an officer who doesn't win so that others will be more intent on carrying out their mission.
The reason the expression is in French is because Napoleon said it when he executed a British admiral for not surrendering fast enough to please him.
The reason the expression is in French is because Napoleon said it when he executed a British admiral for not surrendering fast enough to please him.
No.
It was coined by Voltaire in his novel Candide written in 1759 and referenced the execution of Admiral John Byng, in 1757.
The Roman army had, perhaps, a most effective action called 'Decimation'. Originally it was 1 in ten that were killed normally in a cohort but later was as high as 1 in 2 within a Legion, I hear but cannot confirm. Cossack, Russian, German and others utilized this 'incentive' on reticent troops.
, a most effective action called 'Decimation'.
Yes, originally every tenth man in line. Rather indiscriminate in that regard, which was why it was effective.
Especially since in normal action, the legion rarely sustained those kind of losses. The idea was, presumably, it would be worse on the survivors of a retreat than if they had stood and fought.
Or you could just bomb them and burn down several city blocks.
'Operation Move bombing' (Link to Vox)