The police thread (not the band)

Oh, I dont know if I agree with that completely. There are a lot of people who want to break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, but I strongly suspect that if that's the only motivation, they dont have enough guts or motivation, and most of all, they probably dont have the heart to carry out a felony or even a misdemeanor.

And as for the rest? Most of humanity is quite content living inside the little boxes they were born into. It's what we're trained to do. You hear it in religion. "Obey thy mother and thy father." You hear it in grade school --that's all school is; learning to play nice. You hear it in the world beyond.

Most people, I think, are quite content colouring inside the lines.

 

Again, I propose self policing. It has worked before. You will have a wave of riots and chaos, followed by people getting fed-up and ending the violence (one way or another). People WILL congregate into groups (we are social animals) the strong protect the weak, who offer some other service. In the end, it is like the USA and USSR during the cold war. Sure, either COULD have eliminated the other, but both knew it would spell their own end as well. M.A.D works on the small scale too.

I will admit that my view is skewed. The times that I have needed the police, I have been let down. I was once in a very bad car accident (18-wheeler hit my car then fled the scene) and the police failed to record either of the car loads (4+ people per vehicle) on the report. Due to their error, I had a 9.5 month fight with my insurance company.

The second time I needed them was last summer when a stalker had begun following my sister and her roommate. He tried to climb in through a half-open window, and the police refused to take prints. He came every night, prowling and looking in their windows, the police did nothing. He started to 'collect' small items (stole some sunglasses, which he dropped while fleeing a few nights later) and the police were powerless. At last, my brother and I set up an effective ambush and held him at gun point while we awaited the police. She has a sub station 4 blocks away; it took 20 mins for SAPD to respond. Later, the district attorney dropped all charges against the guy. No reason was ever given. The guy and a prior arrest for the same thing, and we had a positive ID on him watching them every night for a week straight.

I have been given traffic tickets for offenses I felt were false. The judicial system has been structured in a way that prevents citizens from being able to fight an accusation. I took off from work four times and never was able to see a jury. I was told it could be another day or three before I could get my trial (I would just have to keep taking off from work and waiting all day at the court house to see).

So yes, I am a bit jaded. However, I still feel the current system contains a number of unneeded elements.

 

Than what, may I ask, were the first police, if not citizens who rose up to stop crime?
Your third-world examples are not valid because, in those cases, the perpetrators are better armed than the victims. Give everyone an AK-47 and see how many rapes go unpunished.

That is a circular definition. Yes to have a rectangle you must have exactly four 90 degree sides. Yes to have a civilization, defined as a people living under an agreed upon set of laws, you must have laws.

False. See the autobhan in Germany or most of Montana (this changed recently, but was true for many years). No posted limit, yet people survive driving it all the time. Humans have a self-preservation instinct. I will not try to drive my car 150 everywhere I go. I do not want to die. Most people will do the same. The few who will disregard self preservation, will do so regardless of laws.

Also false, see above link for examples. In the end people want to live. People will protect that right. We have all been trained to believe that we need a figure of authority above us to keep 'the bad guys' in line. However, the 'bad guys' will be bad regardless. If there were no repercussions for killing my neighbor and taking his stuff, I would still not do it. Why? Personal moral code. I am willing to bet most people would not kill their neighbor. The ones who do, will soon be killed by a mob of people more interested in preserving their own lives.

I am saying do away with social crimes, not capital crimes. I do not believe that ANY police are needed, but in the interest of protecting the weakest among us, I will agree that some police force should exist.

Did you ever get consulted on the speed limit? Do you honestly believe that any officer on the street knows the curb weight, coefficient of friction for your tire set, or cornering capacity of the vehicles on the highway? Do they have a comprehensive knowledge of physics? Then why agree to let them decide when you are traveling at an “unsafe speed”?

Have you ever driven on the highway? No one drives the posted speed, unless an officer is present. What happens when it rains? People slow down; that is self preservation in action. There are plenty of examples to show that speed does not correlate to traffic accidents.

In the end, most officers (and you agree with this) enforce social laws which you have no say in. Drugs are legalized without your vote. Speed limits changed without public consent. Ask your self how many laws do you break a day. Did you ever agree to them? Were you consulted? There you go, and most police exist to punish you for violating those laws. That is wrong.

 

What do you think our police force is? Some strange beast we import from Law-world to do the job for us? We do self enforce because our police force is drawn from citizens.

What you are talking about is Anarchy not self-enforcement. Most people don't realize that we've already tried anarchy; about a few millennia ago, before Mesopotamia and Egypt rose to power maybe? It works for very small groups to have the population organize and deal with it's own problems, but in larger groups utterly fails. It also leaves weaker groups completely powerless against a stronger group (which is how the first civilizations were formed. Stronger groups enforcing their will over weaker ones).

So the centuries upon centuries of cultural violence in south-east asia and africa has nothing to do with lacking a unified system of law and enforcement? "The people rise up and overthrow evil" makes a great story but it doesn't happen that often and more often than not when it does it fails. The worlds great rebellions are really just flukes. America won it's rebellion because it was mostly united and the stronger British Empire happened to be 3000 miles away across an ocean subject to fierce storms and wars with other powerful nations. Switzerland won because of its terrain, not its people, and because the Holy Roman Empire was falling apart. South America and Africa won freedom because Europe after WWII no longer had the will or strength to hold them in their grasp. Rebellions rarely work. People rising up is never the winning factor. it's almost always an outside force that effects the focus of the strong and gives the weak a chance to break free.

The strong do not protect the weak if there is nothing stopping them from exploiting them. We will congregate into groups, but the stronger groups will enforce their will over the weaker ones. It wasn't until the advent of democracy that the weak were given sufficient power to match the strong and that power came in the form of laws which require enforcement.

I find this statement slightly irrelevant. What does the cold war have to do with law enforcement? Mutually Assured Destruction does not effect small groups, quite the contrary. Small groups lack the force to ensure one another's destruction should they enter conflict which is why warfare among smaller groups is much more common than warfare among large groups (though granted, when the large groups get to fighting it takes forever to end it and it's damn bloody). M.A.D. does not apply to small groups, it is a complex unique to exceptionally powerful nations with vast military force... unless suddenly anyone can obtain an atomic bomb now simply by asking. I'll store mine in the basement... not that I'll ever use the damn thing. Why blow myself and my house up when in such a small space a M92F would be just as effective and be less likely to incinerate me (getting what I mean by irrelevant and not applying to small groups?).

Well that certainly sucks. Probably the budget thing I mentioned before. There isn't enough money in the system for every criminal to be prosecuted and every proper action to be taken. That or he thought there wasn't enough evidence to convict which is very likely. It can be very difficult to convict someone of stalking when all they've done is walk around, especially if there's no concrete evidence that he did more than that. Even the worst defense attorney could win such a case rather easily by calling the stalked paranoid and the like (Yes. I hate defense attorney's. Necessary though they are, they're still bs-tards.).

I know it's probably irrelevant now (at least I hope it is). But the way to deal with that is with a restraining order from a civil court. If he violated that, in all likely hood no DA would dismiss the case for fear of backlash in the voting public... does anyone actually participate in those XD. Ignoring a stalker who has a civil order placed on him is too sever in comparison to just a stalker. But still, he shouldn't have been ignored in the first place. If the department had been able they should have put an officer on the campus for awhile to keep watch and then encouraged the campus itself to boost it's security.

I agree on a certain level. Many misdemeanors have attained such a standing in courts that there is usually no way to fight it. Judges will so often think someone's just making excuses they'll never listen even if a law has been unjustly applied. I can't really think of any other way to do it though... I mean they could listen to every excuse but what effect would that have other than getting all ticket's thrown out and people driving at any speed they want anyhow? Sort of a no win situation really.

 

It appears we replied at the same time (see two posts above...)

So if you acknowledge that laws are selectively enforced, why have them? Why agree to live in a world where only an unfortunate few have to ever answer for their actions?



For the record I am very much enjoying this. No hard feelings on my end

 

Most small groups tend not to need them I agree. In small groups crimes are so less common you can probably get by without a police force and simply deal with the issue when it arises and be perfectly fine.

Thanks for supporting my point. They're quite valid. How do you think they pay for those AK-47's? First they find a stick in the forest, beat those who could possibly oppose them, if not kill them. Then they put everyone else to work and start making money for themselves, hire some henchmen, and gradual build their power until they have every form of weapon they can get their hands on and at that point the weak are screwed because there's nothing they can do anymore.

Montana has a very small population. I've driven there before and you can literally go miles without passing anyone. You're wrong about the Autoban as well. They have no blanket speed limit but they do have traffic police who will pull over and give tickets to drivers traveling at what would be considered unsafe speed. The Autoban has a horribly complex rule set in place to keep it safe, which makes its lack of speed limits almost pointless. Speed limit isn't just about speed it's about maintaining general order on the roads. Keep everyone about uniform and safety improves.

I'm aware of the tests done on speed limit changes but here's the interesting thing people leave out. In follow up studies to many of those tests, when drivers were asked about it, they asked "The speed limit changed?" Most drivers drive in drone mode. They'll notice major things but for the most part don't think about driving. After a few weeks on my local roads, I'd memorized the speed limits, and didn't even look at the signs anymore. They did raise the limit on one major road 10 miles (it was a permanent change not a study) and it was two or three months before people actually started noticing. Once people started noticing they started driving faster. I'll take life experience over a study any day, especially since studies can't even figure out if chocolate is good or bad for you. They go back and forth every year or so.

And who stops them? I suppose anyone could do it theoretically but then we'd devolve into a chaotic do it yourself system which leads to back and forth. Joe kills my brother, Mack throws Joe into a dark room for five years as punishment. Joe's cousin Bob gets angry and breaks Joe out, killing Mack. Mack's son Mick kills Bob.

The beauty of police is that though they are citizens, they can be viewed as a separate entity and often are. When they do these things, it maintains a sense of order that the do it yourself system would lack. People don't turn on the police like they would turn on poor Mack (I blame the uniforms. Something about a mass of guys in uniform is so intimidating). It keeps the public from turning on each other because they will turn on the police first, but they won't do anything to the police because they're convinced it would be pointless (for the most part). It sucks for the officers but it keeps the gears turning.

So, you believe we don't need police, but that we do need some police force? A little contradictory. Any force that is set in place to enforce rule or law is police. You either have no police force or you do have one. The only thing you can change is their scope of power. And again, your classification of crime is flawed. We do not classify crimes as social and capital. We classify them as: Felonies (Murder, robbery, rape), indictable offenses (drug use, the three strikes system), and misdemeanors (speed limit violations, trespassing). Again we need many of these to maintain a sense of order but of course, some of the laws are debatable like drug use and speed limit.

Once more I point out that you problem isn't with the police but rather the laws. Why would you take out your dislike for the situation on police? They don't make rules just enforce them which is necessary for society to function. If you don't like the rules, join a lobbying group or get a movement going.

I really don't know those things either XD. I suck at math. The point of it is that the police don't decide what is unsafe speed. The speed limit does. If the limit is 55, and you're going 65, the police probably won't do anything. At those speeds I think they'd be chasing everyone XD. Besides, when everyone goes 65 the danger isn't that great. It's when everyone is doing ten over and someone comes along and does 20 over that there is a danger.

PS: This comes from my Uncle. He's a state trooper who use to do traffic duty and I've asked him about these things before.

True. Most traffic accidents don't even happen on highways and when they do it's usually nothing relating to speed. Example: It's raining and a truck makes a sharp turn and flips over, blocking the road and causing a few crashes. Happened all the time where I use to live and quite often on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Most traffic accidents are people ignoring stop signs or red lights I think. But the speed limit again isn't just about speed. It's as much about giving people good time to react to changes in road condition, keeping everyone generally uniform to boost stability of the roads. I do think at times states use it to boost revenue (Virginia?) but I believe there is s factor in having a speed limit that increases the security of the roads. More often than questioning the speed limit I question the people who don't like it. The one's I've met tend to be people with dozens of tickets who are upset. My usual response is "65 isn't fast enough so you have to go 80? Why? The taco bell isn't going anywhere for the extra few minutes your on the road."

 

Oh I know (Same here). I love a good debate even when I make a fool of myself while doing it. Fun is fun right .

 

No, my problem is with both. The laws they enforce are flawed (we are given the illusion of control in the laws, but realistically we have no control) and they do a poor job of enforcing them. How many people here can say “I got pulled over, but the officer let me go with a warning.” You then have been given special treatment. Laws can have no exception or they are worthless. Who decides who gets to walk and who gets punished? Why are they allowed to make such a call? (I have been given warnings on many occasions, I am not an exception here) .

Back to the situation with my sister, had the police taken prints when the guy tried to enter the house (which is their policy, the responding officer chose not to. I assume laziness, but will never know) they would have had a case against him. As a result of their lack of action, a predator (remember he has a prior conviction for the same stuff) is still on the streets. How is that protecting the citizens? I am still paying taxes to fund that incompetence. Why? Every time I have needed them I have been let down. If you took your car to a mechanic who always failed to install the oil filter after a oil change, would you still say he was needed? When you started doing your own oil changes (in an attempt to reduce damage) would you still think it fair to pay the mechanic for his services?

 

Laws aren't about control. They're about order (I always knew the title Law & Order was perfect XD). The laws are not really flawed. They are viewed differently. Many people like speed limits, and many others don't. They aren't flawed there is a difference of opinion over whether they should exist. I doubt we'll ever lose speed limits regardless of whether they're pointless or not. Too much money involved for the states.

No idea but damn I got lucky XD. I noticed the cop following me and but the road really had no where to pull over on, so I drove for five miles at the speed limit until I found a gas station and pulled into that. A few minutes later five other cop cars showed up and I was bugging out XD. I think they thought I was going to run for it but no way was I pulling over with half my car in that curve filled road. Regardless of the warning I never went more than five over the limit again XD.

It was actually really common where I lived for first offenses. It was a relatively small (not too small) place and the smaller the area you usually get more lenient and forgiving cops. New York cops are overworked and probably don't do as best they could (again not enough money for proper numbers), but smaller communities tend to have better law enforcement because they don't have as many places to put in tax dollars. Add the smaller crime rates and you get cops with better attitude.

I assume police have that authority because they've supposedly been empowered by the public with it. Technically they're empowered by the government for whom they are employed, which I don't think is under as much public control as anyone is like. Regardless of that I'd rather have them than not have them. No system is perfect, but a system that works on the whole scale, however inconsistent or however many screw ups it makes on the smaller scale, is better than no system at all imo.

Again I would blame financing not the officers themselves. Most of your tax dollars to the people who fund police end up in the hands of welfare recipients, or in public works projects. Very little actually goes to police in most major cities. Add that to the fact most states are bleeding for money these days and most power has now ended up in the hands of the federal government and thus congress, and we all see now how good congress is with money.

I want to move to the mid-west. So few people there there really are almost no cops... that and I just don't like dealing with crowds .

lol. By certain irony that's why I want to learn to change my own oil (except Jiffylube remembered the filter but forgot the oil XD).

 

That's not too great an analogy. More like the mechanic doesn't let you change your own oil, and when you try to, he blows up your car.

I wouldn't mind letting the police be the only ones who uphold the law if they weren't so incompetent, racist, and spent more time chasing crime instead of giving out tickets.

 

Why? I'm just curious why you feel that way....I realize this is all the way on the first page, but just wanted to know your answer. I personally feel like guns in general get a bad rap and there's a certain misconception of them sometimes. I'm of course talking about regulated gun posession, nothing illegal or unsafe. I'd say more but I'm on my mobile phone so it becomes a pain saying too much, lol. I just want to hear your answer.

 

Why? Because they're designed to kill. Enough innocent people have died as a result of a gun, and even more criminal people have lost their lives just because they stole from a corner shop, and happened to run passed a cop who thought it was necessary to shoot them down.
Does stealing really need to result in death?

Guns are fatal weapons. Yes, so is a (blah blah - name any weapon including a spoon here if used correctly) but absolutely none of those match up to the power of a gun. Guns kill easily, in seconds, from very long distances - and even a child could use one (as we've seen in alot of cases).

Nothing will convince me that a gun is a good thing to have. If the criminals dont have guns, there's even less reason for a cop to have a gun.

More than anything, most people just own a gun because it's their source of pride - I bet most civillians that own a gun keep it under their bed never use it, except at parties of course, or when guests are around - guns are apparently a cool trophy.
Does that stop their kids finding it and using it? Or a burglar?
Nope.

Guns can mean instant fatality and personally I dont believe that anybody should have that right.

So...yep, that's my answer about guns.

[Let the floodgates of argumentative responses open!]

 

Ok, look at it this way then. The police, is a supportive organ of the Judiciary. Without it, there would be no law an order at the very distt. level. It'll in-turn increase the load on the judiciary, to the point of cracking. Now I know that the Judiciary is kept separate from the Legislature and the Executive(in Federations like US, even those are separate.) But if the Judiciary cracks, there are bound to be pressure on constitutional guidelines. The President will have to declare something like a national emergency, and there are chances that the emergency becomes a dictatorship. Or the government will crash, and a new Legislature will have to be formed. How are we going to control elections without the police? Call in the army?? Or seek help from the UN? Either way the impact is going to be huge. That's basically one of the reasons democracies didn't work after WW1, esp. in Italy and Germany, therefore giving rise to systems Fascism and Nazism. And Communism. What resulted was the subsequent WW2 and the Cold War.

So yeah, I think the police is a necessary requirement. Unless we want to rely on the voice of "conscience". But that doesn't work very well in all cases does it? Look at Ted Bundy. Although, I agree we need a tightened control on the police system.


These were just personal thoughts. Nothing against anyone.

 

(sheesh I looked up the U.S. constitution. It's so short! Ours is like 100s of pages.)

I got this off the net:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Does this really mean that even civilians are allowed to keep arms?? Is it so easy for them to get the license?

 

wow! In my country the only people who get license are either in the defence(sometimes not even then) or in grave danger, and get it under original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, solid proof that Banzai is a politics student.

I do and don't like guns. In the right hands (i.e. A display case where no-one can get to it or an anti-terrorism unit) then yeah, pretty cool.

A 15 year old who has an actual G-36 assault rifle in his bedroom, capable of firing armour piercing bullets with one small modification (Literally taking a clip out) is what I like to call: [size=+4]STUPID.[/size]

I'm quite surprised he hasn't shot himself. Yet.

River of bricks time?

 

Right-o. I have a question.

Here in England we have kind of, well, pint-sized policemen called community support officers. Is there any equivalent in whatever country you're in?

 

Even if you removed a law enforcing authority, another one would form naturally. People look for a leader.

I agree that perhaps the policing systems could be improved but it ultimately comes down to money.

 

Which circles back to my first comment about officers being on traffic patrol, enforcing non-real laws, as a source on income. In the cited pages there is an article showing some percentage raise in ticket issuing when some percentage of budget shortfall occurs. So money determines if laws are enforced? Money should determine if an officer is patrolling a residential region looking for a serial prowler, or parking on the side of the highway to issue speeding tickets? That is ridiculous.

On a gun-related tangent, it is interesting that most opposition so far here comes from people with little to no experience around them. Support comes from (mostly) Americans or other people who grew up around them. I bet that gun EDUCATION would work much better than banning, if you want to reduce accidental shootings (even among police).

 

First: The spoon thing made me laugh.

The only thing I have to say is this: Especially where I live (deep south), the primary reason for owning guns is to go hunting. For deer, quail, squirrel, rabbit, turkey, etc. Now, whether hunting animals is wrong or not is another matter entirely, I'd just like to point out that there are other reasons for owning guns other than pride and "self-defense."

 

Lol hunting isn't a justified reason for a gun either. Hunting should not be a sport and if it's for food leave it to the professionals - who by the way, raise the animals on a farm and don't just go out shooting precious wildlife.

Back on topic: What about police batons? they use those in the UK and they'd be pretty brutal if you got battered with one.

For the record - I reckon i could do some damage with a spoon, sure

 

Some cops have them here in the US too (as well as the gun). I think it depends on where you are cause I've seen police both with them and without them. I'd say that they're useful enough if the situation escalates to potential violence, but not so much that the officer's gun is needed. Why use a gun to ward of a guy with a knife when some careful baton work does the job just as well? Then there's riot control...

Although I always wonder why police don't just in general switch to non-lethal ammunition for the guns. Rubber bullets won't kill anyone if your careful, nor will they cause too much harm. I figure that's the budget thing yet again. Believe it or not rubber bullets cost more than the hallow point ones (I assume because lead is a more readily available resource than rubber and cheaper to manufacture for general use). A lot of cops use them in tense moments but most guns in law enforcement still carry lethal ammunition as far as I know.

 

You have to look at defence from an offiver's point of view. If I were a LEO (law enforcement officer) and a guy pulls a knife on me I can
A) Pull my baton and carefully try to restrain the guy, while risking a fatal stab against myself
B) Draw and fire. Situation ends in a fatality for the guy, but I am 100% alive.

I'll pick B every time; the guy was intending to kill me.

Lets say I have rubber bullets loaded. The guy comes at me and I fire. I will injur him, but odds are not kill him (unless we are very close or I hit face/eyes/temple/he has a hear condition/etc.). He can (and will) now sue me and the department for injury and use of excessive violence. It happens often sadly.

Also, say I am packing rubber bullets and get a call to stop a guy robbing a 7-11. I respond and the guy pulls a gun. I now lack the ability to stop the guy and rish being shot (and risk having bystanders shot or taken hostage).

Less than lethal (LtL) options are nice, but only and a backup and only in some cases. That is why police do not widely use them.

Also consider that the purp may be hopped up on any number of drugs. You can fire 5+ rounds into a guy (kill shots to the heart/lungs) and have him still keep coming then stab/shoot his target. Scary stuff. The officers are therefore trained to fire at the hip first, then at a lethal point.

 

Obviously the main difference between the UK and the US is in the need for guns and lethal weapons to be in the police's armoury.

For me, no civilian should be allowed a gun full stop. They are lethal weapons, no matter what else is said about them. They can never be safe, as their entire purpose is to kill and wound. Obviously though, some criminals will always be able to acquire guns through the black market, and as such there will always be a need for force and firearms to be an option for law enforcement officials, if only in limited situations.

Here in the UK, thanks to the ban on firearms, it's extremely hard for the criminal underworld to come by guns. As such, the police can be confident in having only batons and CS spray as a part of their regular armoury as situations with involving guns will happen once every blue moon, and as a result only certain special response teams have guns. These teams may see action once or twice a year each.

Compare that to the US. Disarming the nation would be a nightmare, and it would for some time be easy for the criminal underclass to come by guns. The police do, therefore, need guns to combat guns, which is fair comment. But training and understanding are required to such an extent that all police officers are highly trained and understand the needs of their job and how to respond to every situation; their aim should be to preserve all life, and not to treat a criminal's life as something that can be just thrown away.

 

I would like to say that for me it sounds more like the English not trusting their cops to exercise good judgment then anything else.

This is something i would expect out of any cop, armed or not. They are charged with protecting and serving the public, most of them take that seriously and i do think that taking their guns away is disruptive to their jobs and shows a major lack of trust in their judgment.

But even without guns you can still do a lot of damage if you want to. The last few terrorist acts committed in Jerusalem come to mind where the murder weapons were tractors. All of them were stopped in time by cops at the scene shooting the terrorist dead.

Another good example of murder being committed without guns is the akahabira massacre were a man drove a truck into a crowded street walked out and began stabbing people.

A cop with a gun will most likely kill a criminal; this may prevent many deaths or many injuries.

In my eyes, that's a fair trade of.

Also I do think it's not the availability of guns that makes school massacres so common in the u.s (look at Canada, no massacres at school but guns are available) but the school clichés that seem so prevalent in American teenage society.